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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When there is a patient with a pseudo seizure we make it clear in the note and diagnosis. How do you all make sense of the fact that she’s brilliant? Does that negate everything?

She is brilliant. I'll allow that. And a con artist. Brains without integrity is a very dangerous combination.

This!

[Anonymous]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

Being accused means nothing. Anyone can be accused of anything - especially in a divorce case. And it’s not like the mom has shown herself to be of sterling character.

[Anonymous]

Oh stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

That is really interesting, thanks for pointing it out.

I imagine her statement that by 13 she had broken more bones than years she has been alive should be reasonable straightforward to verify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

You do realize that the document you’re linking s not an objective report but the university’s attempt to defend itself. It not only is slanted but it whitewashes Penn’s role in all of this and acknowledges no wrongdoing on their part - as would be expected of an institution defending itself against serious allegations

My guess is that the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the positions that the 2 sides have staked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh stop.

Well, there’s a mature argument.

[Anonymous]

https://www.chesterfieldmontessori.org/cms-alumni-spotlight/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

You do realize that the document you’re linking s not an objective report but the university’s attempt to defend itself. It not only is slanted but it whitewashes Penn’s role in all of this and acknowledges no wrongdoing on their part - as would be expected of an institution defending itself against serious allegations

My guess is that the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the positions that the 2 sides have staked out.

DP. Sure, it isn't objective. But the positions taken in it are detailed and supported by facts. When Penn refers to the lack of police records to support a statement Fierceton made about receiving threatening packages and letters, that is likely to be true. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying facts described by Penn have supporting evidence.

It is always telling in a civil dispute when one side has a lot of detail and alleged facts, and the other does not. Fierceton's filing is filled with a bunch of very grand allegations, but comparatively little in the way of citable facts. That is the opposite of the Penn filing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

You do realize that the document you’re linking s not an objective report but the university’s attempt to defend itself. It not only is slanted but it whitewashes Penn’s role in all of this and acknowledges no wrongdoing on their part - as would be expected of an institution defending itself against serious allegations

My guess is that the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the positions that the 2 sides have staked out.

DP. Sure, it isn't objective. But the positions taken in it are detailed and supported by facts. When Penn refers to the lack of police records to support a statement Fierceton made about receiving threatening packages and letters, that is likely to be true. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying facts described by Penn have supporting evidence.

It is always telling in a civil dispute when one side has a lot of detail and alleged facts, and the other does not. Fierceton's filing is filled with a bunch of very grand allegations, but comparatively little in the way of citable facts. That is the opposite of the Penn filing.

The problem is that Penn isn’t being accused of misrepresenting the facts. The lawsuit alleges retaliation for MF’s role in a separate lawsuit against Penn. This doesn’t really address that. In fact, it goes over the top in its efforts to continue to smear the plaintiff, thereby reinforcing her claim that they are acting with malice toward her. I still think that her case is going to win, but proving that she lied on her college application doesn’t counter her claim of retaliation.

[Anonymous]

In the previous post, I meant to say, “I still think her case is going to be hard to win”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

You do realize that the document you’re linking s not an objective report but the university’s attempt to defend itself. It not only is slanted but it whitewashes Penn’s role in all of this and acknowledges no wrongdoing on their part - as would be expected of an institution defending itself against serious allegations

My guess is that the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the positions that the 2 sides have staked out.

DP. Sure, it isn't objective. But the positions taken in it are detailed and supported by facts. When Penn refers to the lack of police records to support a statement Fierceton made about receiving threatening packages and letters, that is likely to be true. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying facts described by Penn have supporting evidence.

It is always telling in a civil dispute when one side has a lot of detail and alleged facts, and the other does not. Fierceton's filing is filled with a bunch of very grand allegations, but comparatively little in the way of citable facts. That is the opposite of the Penn filing.

The problem is that Penn isn’t being accused of misrepresenting the facts. The lawsuit alleges retaliation for MF’s role in a separate lawsuit against Penn. This doesn’t really address that. In fact, it goes over the top in its efforts to continue to smear the plaintiff, thereby reinforcing her claim that they are acting with malice toward her. I still think that her case is going to win, but proving that she lied on her college application doesn’t counter her claim of retaliation.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Has anyone zillowed the value of mom's home? I doubt she lives in a shanty.

[Anonymous]

Her day school was $30,000 a year 7th through 12th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

You do realize that the document you’re linking s not an objective report but the university’s attempt to defend itself. It not only is slanted but it whitewashes Penn’s role in all of this and acknowledges no wrongdoing on their part - as would be expected of an institution defending itself against serious allegations

My guess is that the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the positions that the 2 sides have staked out.

DP. Sure, it isn't objective. But the positions taken in it are detailed and supported by facts. When Penn refers to the lack of police records to support a statement Fierceton made about receiving threatening packages and letters, that is likely to be true. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying facts described by Penn have supporting evidence.

It is always telling in a civil dispute when one side has a lot of detail and alleged facts, and the other does not. Fierceton's filing is filled with a bunch of very grand allegations, but comparatively little in the way of citable facts. That is the opposite of the Penn filing.

The problem is that Penn isn’t being accused of misrepresenting the facts. The lawsuit alleges retaliation for MF’s role in a separate lawsuit against Penn. This doesn’t really address that. In fact, it goes over the top in its efforts to continue to smear the plaintiff, thereby reinforcing her claim that they are acting with malice toward her. I still think that her case is going to win, but proving that she lied on her college application doesn’t counter her claim of retaliation.

They do address it. It’s in paragraph 51, p. 71 of answer. Here it is:

Having previously nominated Fierceton for the Rhodes, Penn had a duty to notify the Rhodes Trust of the issues that had surfaced relating to Fierceton’s background and application. While Fierceton contends that this report was in retaliation for her role as a witness in the Driver litigation, a wholly unrelated and ongoing wrongful death matter brought by the administrators of the estate of a deceased Penn student, Cameron Avant Driver. See Est. of Driver v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, et al., Case No. 1634 (Phila. C.C.P. 2020), that is untrue. No one at Penn in contact with the Rhodes Trust at the time was even aware that Fierceton had any potential connection to the Driver case.

So, they do address it explicitly and clearly.

The details about how Fierceton misrepresented herself to the university are highly relevant to the retaliation claim, because it shows good cause for their actions that has nothing to do with retaliatory purposes. And stating facts about the plaintiff that are relevant to the defense and supported by evidence in a defense to a lawsuit brought by plaintiff isn’t “smearing” under any definition.

These filings do not look good for Fierceton. Her case is weak from what we can see so far.