UMC suburban college student lied about background to become prestigious Rhodes Scholar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/joe-holleman/former-st-louis-area-student-loses-rhodes-scholarship-over-false-narratives/article_168d834b-b9d1-5f43-b176-ec039724a0b8.html


In 2014, the Post-Dispatch reported that Morrison had been charged with three counts of child abuse in connection with an incident at the family home. Five months later, St. Louis County prosecutors said they dropped all charges after investigators uncovered new evidence.

New evidence? So the persecutors dropped the case not b/c lack of evidence but new evidence. Interesting.

No it doesn’t mean anything except they didn’t think they had enough physical evidence to prove she was pushed. Besides, why not charge the mom girvfdikure to take her to the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The injuries did warrant it. OP is making sh!t up.

? Have you read the articles linked above? The Rhodes Committee specifically said that her claimed injuries were not supported by the hospital records. That was one of the main reasons they gave for revoking he scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The Rhodes Committee mentioned the claims didn't match the hospital records. For example she said she needed braces but no bones were broken. If we look into this more I believe we will find no evidence that her hair was matted with blood and her facial lacerations made her unrecognizable as she claimed. Basically they didn't believe her and they saw the records.

She stated that she was unrecognizable to herself from what she normally sees in the mirror. The scholarship committee is latching into “well she was recognizable to others” so that’s a lie. S

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The injuries did warrant it. OP is making sh!t up.

? Have you read the articles linked above? The Rhodes Committee specifically said that her claimed injuries were not supported by the hospital records. That was one of the main reasons they gave for revoking he scholarship.

Yes of course I’ve read the article. They stated that she was recognizable to others so that was a lie. She said she was not recognizable to her self in the mirror. I’ve been in the hospital and yeah when you see yourself sick and broken you don’t even recognize yourself that’s what she was saying.

She clarified that with her lawyer statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The injuries did warrant it. OP is making sh!t up.

? Have you read the articles linked above? The Rhodes Committee specifically said that her claimed injuries were not supported by the hospital records. That was one of the main reasons they gave for revoking he scholarship.

Yes of course I’ve read the article. They stated that she was recognizable to others so that was a lie. She said she was not recognizable to her self in the mirror. I’ve been in the hospital and yeah when you see yourself sick and broken you don’t even recognize yourself that’s what she was saying.

She clarified that with her lawyer statements.

She said her hair was “caked with dried blood” and her facial features were “so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart.” The Rhodes Committee concluded that claim was not supported by the hospital records. I guess you're saying they're wrong and made a terrible mistake. But she's not suing them, and they are the ones who made the decision to revoke the scholarship offer.

[Anonymous]

Reading this on DCUM I just get deja vu with the Jackie rape case at Uva. Everyone on here piled on against the frat where the alleged rape took place. Then questions started being asked. And slowly the story just fell apart. It was found she made it all up. I think this story is going to fall apart too. But I'll wait and see how it turns out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding to the above....

Mackenzie was matched with Penn through Questbridge. In her Questbridge app, she said she feared for her life if her parents found out where she was and therefore asked that no effort be made to contact them. Questbridge honored that request and they weren't contacted.

lol. I find it hard to believe a 17 yo cooked all of this up. The mom was probably in on it. Two-bit schemers, common opportunists.

No. She's certainly intelligent. I think mental health or sociopathic inclinations will surface, eventually.

What's fascinating about Questbridge is that I guarantee she tried to get into HYPS — and they stiffed out her bulls*t! I guarantee it. Only the nitwit admissions team at Penn were stupid enough to fall for her web of lies. From what I recall, Questbridge has you list a top 3 or top 10 or something like that, so it's not the same as a binding app to Penn and only Penn. She used Questbridge to basically send multiple binding apps to the Ivies, I guarantee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this on DCUM I just get deja vu with the Jackie rape case at Uva. Everyone on here piled on against the frat where the alleged rape took place. Then questions started being asked. And slowly the story just fell apart. It was found she made it all up. I think this story is going to fall apart too. But I'll wait and see how it turns out.

Interesting I agree for a different reason. The Jackie story was about 3 rapes. 2 were true and in 1 case a frat member went to jail, the 2nd nobody was charged but it was true and then there was the 3rd… Jackie which was false.

Everybody remembers Jackie, but nobody remembers at least 2 other women were raped at that frat.

Just like everybody will remember the 1 minor statement that might have been exaggerated in her essay but forget that her mother put her in the hospital for ~ a month, the school had to take her to the hospital, she was put in foster care, her father abandoned her, grandparents abandoned her, she aged out of foster care and she has no family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The injuries did warrant it. OP is making sh!t up.

? Have you read the articles linked above? The Rhodes Committee specifically said that her claimed injuries were not supported by the hospital records. That was one of the main reasons they gave for revoking he scholarship.

Yes of course I’ve read the article. They stated that she was recognizable to others so that was a lie. She said she was not recognizable to her self in the mirror. I’ve been in the hospital and yeah when you see yourself sick and broken you don’t even recognize yourself that’s what she was saying.

She clarified that with her lawyer statements.

She said her hair was “caked with dried blood” and her facial features were “so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart.” The Rhodes Committee concluded that claim was not supported by the hospital records. I guess you're saying they're wrong and made a terrible mistake. But she's not suing them, and they are the ones who made the decision to revoke the scholarship offer.

Her statement is that is how she remembered it and having sat with victims of domestic violence and worked on their testimony I believe how she believed it won’t “match” the records. That common, that is why you always need physical evidence. Like injuries so bad from falling downstairs but she end up in the hospital for almost a month. Who cares if her exact words match the medical documentation. Whatever happened between her mother and her that day she end up in the hospital for a month, her mother did not take her to the hospital, and the school is the one I figured out she was injured and took her to the hospital. That is a classic mode of operation for abusers.

I also think withdrawing from Rhodes is strategic from the lawyers standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The injuries did warrant it. OP is making sh!t up.

? Have you read the articles linked above? The Rhodes Committee specifically said that her claimed injuries were not supported by the hospital records. That was one of the main reasons they gave for revoking he scholarship.

Yes of course I’ve read the article. They stated that she was recognizable to others so that was a lie. She said she was not recognizable to her self in the mirror. I’ve been in the hospital and yeah when you see yourself sick and broken you don’t even recognize yourself that’s what she was saying.

She clarified that with her lawyer statements.

She said her hair was “caked with dried blood” and her facial features were “so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart.” The Rhodes Committee concluded that claim was not supported by the hospital records. I guess you're saying they're wrong and made a terrible mistake. But she's not suing them, and they are the ones who made the decision to revoke the scholarship offer.

Her statement is that is how she remembered it and having sat with victims of domestic violence and worked on their testimony I believe how she believed it won’t “match” the records. That common, that is why you always need physical evidence. Like injuries so bad from falling downstairs but she end up in the hospital for almost a month. Who cares if her exact words match the medical documentation. Whatever happened between her mother and her that day she end up in the hospital for a month, her mother did not take her to the hospital, and the school is the one I figured out she was injured and took her to the hospital. That is a classic mode of operation for abusers.

I also think withdrawing from Rhodes is strategic from the lawyers standpoint.

That does not make sense. The Rhodes Committee would have been incentivized to find any hook they could to support her story. Fierceton makes them look like fools otherwise and they care deeply about their reputation. So if they had the medical records, they would have been looking hard for a way for the story to hang together.

The fact that they couldn't means there was a gap that could not be bridged between the records and the content of her Rhodes application. I suspect there were lots of other gaps too, and it just became too much. For instance if she had been truthful about everything else but the hospital records were murky, Rhodes probably would have been fine. It was too much taken in aggregate, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

Then why did she need ~month in the hospital to recover? Part of it in the ICU?

This is a great question. Why did she spend so much time in the hospital when the injuries didn't warrant it? One has to wonder.

how do you know the injuries didn't warrant one month at the hospital?

The injuries did warrant it. OP is making sh!t up.

? Have you read the articles linked above? The Rhodes Committee specifically said that her claimed injuries were not supported by the hospital records. That was one of the main reasons they gave for revoking he scholarship.

Yes of course I’ve read the article. They stated that she was recognizable to others so that was a lie. She said she was not recognizable to her self in the mirror. I’ve been in the hospital and yeah when you see yourself sick and broken you don’t even recognize yourself that’s what she was saying.

She clarified that with her lawyer statements.

She said her hair was “caked with dried blood” and her facial features were “so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart.” The Rhodes Committee concluded that claim was not supported by the hospital records. I guess you're saying they're wrong and made a terrible mistake. But she's not suing them, and they are the ones who made the decision to revoke the scholarship offer.

Her statement is that is how she remembered it and having sat with victims of domestic violence and worked on their testimony I believe how she believed it won’t “match” the records. That common, that is why you always need physical evidence. Like injuries so bad from falling downstairs but she end up in the hospital for almost a month. Who cares if her exact words match the medical documentation. Whatever happened between her mother and her that day she end up in the hospital for a month, her mother did not take her to the hospital, and the school is the one I figured out she was injured and took her to the hospital. That is a classic mode of operation for abusers.

I also think withdrawing from Rhodes is strategic from the lawyers standpoint.

That does not make sense. The Rhodes Committee would have been incentivized to find any hook they could to support her story. Fierceton makes them look like fools otherwise and they care deeply about their reputation. So if they had the medical records, they would have been looking hard for a way for the story to hang together.

The fact that they couldn't means there was a gap that could not be bridged between the records and the content of her Rhodes application. I suspect there were lots of other gaps too, and it just became too much. For instance if she had been truthful about everything else but the hospital records were murky, Rhodes probably would have been fine. It was too much taken in aggregate, though.

This plus the fact Rhodes defines first generation/low income as meaning Actually first generation/low income. She lied about that. They would look like fools if they gave someone a scholarship on that basis when the truth came out that she was neither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the statement of the prosecutor who brought the case against the mom and then dropped it is most damning. He said bringing the charges against the mom was the worst mistake of his career. He concluded that Mackenzie's charges were completely fabricated.

Mackenzie claimed her mom was abusing prescription drugs. A search warrant was issued for them. A search of the home found no drugs at all and there was no other evidence that the mom was abusing drugs.

BTW, the charges against her mom made the front page of the newspaper in St. Louis. The mom was suspended from the hospital and the practice of medicine until they were resolved.

Another young girl was living with Mackenzie and her mom at the time the incident occurred. She said she never saw the mom abuse Mackenzie and never saw any evidence that the mom was using drugs.

Mackenzie's father was an actor who allegedly abused her mom.

This “Fierceton” sounds like a dangerous manipulative psycho. She put her mother through all that because she was angry at her mom. Crazy person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this on DCUM I just get deja vu with the Jackie rape case at Uva. Everyone on here piled on against the frat where the alleged rape took place. Then questions started being asked. And slowly the story just fell apart. It was found she made it all up. I think this story is going to fall apart too. But I'll wait and see how it turns out.

Interesting I agree for a different reason. The Jackie story was about 3 rapes. 2 were true and in 1 case a frat member went to jail, the 2nd nobody was charged but it was true and then there was the 3rd… Jackie which was false.

Everybody remembers Jackie, but nobody remembers at least 2 other women were raped at that frat.

Just like everybody will remember the 1 minor statement that might have been exaggerated in her essay but forget that her mother put her in the hospital for ~ a month, the school had to take her to the hospital, she was put in foster care, her father abandoned her, grandparents abandoned her, she aged out of foster care and she has no family.

All this. +++

[Anonymous]

Penn is full of scammers. It’s the culture and ethos of the institution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this on DCUM I just get deja vu with the Jackie rape case at Uva. Everyone on here piled on against the frat where the alleged rape took place. Then questions started being asked. And slowly the story just fell apart. It was found she made it all up. I think this story is going to fall apart too. But I'll wait and see how it turns out.

Interesting I agree for a different reason. The Jackie story was about 3 rapes. 2 were true and in 1 case a frat member went to jail, the 2nd nobody was charged but it was true and then there was the 3rd… Jackie which was false.

Everybody remembers Jackie, but nobody remembers at least 2 other women were raped at that frat.

Just like everybody will remember the 1 minor statement that might have been exaggerated in her essay but forget that her mother put her in the hospital for ~ a month, the school had to take her to the hospital, she was put in foster care, her father abandoned her, grandparents abandoned her, she aged out of foster care and she has no family.

All this. +++

The Jackie story was false and made uo out of whole cloth. It fell apart when a few obvious questions about factual discrepancies were asked. I get the feel this one will too. So many unanswered questions. I think Mackenzie should just stop digging, she will come out of this looking worse than she does now.