These 2 professors hold endowed chairs, which is what probably gives them the job security to take on the university’s top tier of administration. They have already said that they are working on a joint article, which they plan to publish. Rogers Smith has agreed to be her designated representative in the OSC process. Obviously they are prepared to be deposed and to put what they’ve said in writing.
Whether or not they have a personal agenda is entirely irrelevant. So far no evidence has been presented in public reports that they do.
The professors can only comment on their personal knowledge. Perhaps she did not misrepresent her background to them. Whether she did so to the Rhodes trust or other Penn officials is not within their knowledge, and is the relevant point here. She is accused of misrepresentation to Rhodes and Penn admission officers, not 2 random faculty.
And I directly quoted the actual lawsuit where her lawyers outline a timeline and specific claims, damages and allegations of liability related to her initial medical emergency.
Not sure how familiar you are with these types of lawsuits but plaintiff lawyers don’t narrowly express damages or claims. To the contrary they throw everything into the claim hoping to create a narrative in the hope that something sticks.
Incorporated in her filing is the following detailed claim that the delayed response of emergency medical professionals was Penn’s fault and resulted in her requiring a prolonged hospital stay.
“On January 29, 2020, the lawsuit states, Fierceton, then an undergrad in the final semester of her senior year, “suffered a seizure” while attending a class on campus in the basement of the Caster Building at 3701 Locust Walk.
“Due to the inaccessibility of the Caster Building, and specifically its basement, and the Penn Defendants’ improper emergency protocol, it took more than an hour for emergency personnel to remove from the building,” the lawsuit states.
“This delay caused condition to further deteriorate, and as such, she was required to be admitted to the neurological intensive care unit for three days at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, where she spent a total of five days.”
What do you think the purpose of this portion of her lawsuit is about?
Yes, a DA did not pursue charges. There wasn’t sufficient evidence for him to make a case. This happens all the time in he said/she said cases. The lack of witnesses makes it hard to determine whose version of events to believe. Other than that, the fact that he did not pursue charges doesn’t prove anything on any or the other.
I’m not aware that a judge expunged the records. He did conclude that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to maintain her on the child abuse Central Registry. That’s a different matter.
I’m also not aware that this student has filed 2 lawsuits. AFAIK, the only suit she has filed is against Penn for retaliating against her by withholding her master’s degree and undermining her Rhodes Scholarship. The other reported lawsuit is for wrongful death and has been filed by the Driver family. Fierceton has volunteered to be a witness in this proceeding, but it is not her suit.
They can comment on anything they want. Rogers Smith is her designated representative in the ISC process, so he will certainly be an active participant and can comment on her behalf during that proceeding.
and taking the mother off the child abuse central registry. Seems the same to me but you seem to have far greater insight and emotional attachment to this case then I do. I will defer and let others engage.
The lack of evidence to pursue an abuse case is at odds with her claim of severe injuries as she describes in her application. Had those injuries been substantiated, the doctors treating her would have been able to testify about their severity and that they couldn’t have been self-inflicted or accidental. That is the basis for almost all child abuse prosecutions. There are always conflicting accounts between parent and child, and a lack of eye-witnesses; prosecutors expect that routinely. As you recall, in this case the prosecutor said he really couldn’t ascertain what happened and dropped the charges.
The fact that the woman years later had seizures landing her in ICU for 5 days suggests her medical condition is more complex, and that may account in part for the 3 week stay at age 17.
Sure, you and I can comment too, but that is all irrelevant legally and for the conduct hearing. Personal knowledge only is relevant. Save the opinions for discussion boards
So according to her legal filing, she was injured by the schools negligence, she wasn’t (and is not according to you seeking damages) and Penn is retaliating in spite of her lack of litigiousness. Got it.
This thread has certainly opened my eyes to what a different universe some posters inhabit, in which Ivy League universities, Public Prosecutors, Judges and scholarship trusts all conspire secretly against one woman for nefarious purposes. I expect someone will allege CIA involvement soon, to attempt to assassinate her.
I don’t feel that, as much as some posters here ready to damn a girl whom they don’t know, by way of information gotten from Facebook groups, estranged mothers and school administrators, who do not want cases about liability brought against them.
Obviously, people here disagree, but I will leave it for the court to judge who is right, because that’s where this story belongs.
FWIW, there is a difference for me (former prosecutor) between “expungement” (usually of a conviction) and a determination not to place someone on a registry. The criteria and standards for these decisions are likely different. I’d want to know more about the jurisdiction.
I don’t take much from the fact that a DA decided not to go forward with a case. These cases are difficult. Doesn’t mean she wasn’t abused and proof beyond a reasonable doubt certainly isn’t the standard for Penn or any other college.
Roycroftmom raises an interesting point about the private high school. Did the daughter continue to attend once she entered the foster system? I thought not, but I read the excerpts about the two professors several days ago. I was under the impression she left all that behind when she entered the foster system.
In any event, another way to frame it is this: she gave up enormous privileges that day she lodged abuse allegations against her mother and entered foster care. She had several placements and pretty much had to schlepp all her possessions with her from placement to placement. She eventually forged a relationship with her final foster placement but she had no way of knowing it would work out. She became permanently estranged from her mom. If she gave up her private school and/or moved away from her town, she gave up her friends and pre-existing support system. If she already had epilepsy, she placed herself at greater medical risk by living with strangers. The foster care system can be a lifeline for some, but it is well known for its many deficiencies. Life would have to be pretty awful at home to willingly put yourself in that system.
Perhaps she wasn’t as forthcoming with Rhodes as she should have been, but Penn’s definition of FGLI was open-ended enough to drive a Mack truck through it. That definition helps one and only one institution: Penn.
You would be correct if that is what happened but she was removed from the registry as opposed to a a decision not to place her on a registry as you suggest.
“Department of Social Services and the Children’s Division of the State of Missouri did not meet their burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff’s biological mother abused [Fierceton] and so, [Fierceton’s] biological mother was removed from the Central Registry of persons that committed abuse and/or neglect.”
The definition below is from the US Governments Child Welfare Website…
Charges against the mother weren’t dropped based on a lack of evidence but the emergence of new evidence resulting from an investigation.
“Ed McGee, spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch, said that due to new evidence uncovered by investigators, two felony charges and one misdemeanor charge against Dr. Carrie C. Morrison, 53, of Chesterfield were dropped last month.”
This is how she described her childhood for a Philadelphia Inquirer profile in 2020…
“Mackenzie Fierceton grew up poor, cycling through the rocky child welfare system. She bounced from one foster home to the next. One home, during her junior year of high school, was so “toxic” and crammed with other foster kids that she left for weeks at a time, sleeping each night on a carousel of couches at the homes of various friends, she said.”
So we have investigators, district attorneys, Penn administration, Rhodes Committee and journalists all working in concert to destroy the reputation of a student who embodies the institutional diversity goals of some of these institutions, had previously been publicized as a success story and was bringing prestige to the community given her achievements. Not drawing conclusions but that is the allegation.
The mother, a prominent physician, was facing 2 felony & 1 misdemeanor counts in a he said/ she said matter.
In order to bring multiple serious charges in a he said/ she said matter, there had to be substantial evidence which matched/supported the claims.
The “new evidence” which led to the charges being dropped has not been revealed. It could simply be that lack of credibility of the state’s primary witness became an issue & the DA decided that the case would be too difficult to prove. This is not uncommon in he said / she said cases.
Please read the “Pillow Talk” article that I referenced early in this thread. It reveals that the young lady researched the incident, documented her findings, & gave the information to the deceased student’s mother which led to a major lawsuit against the university.
Regarding the young lady’s mother: Of course she will do anything that she can to get 2 felony & 1 misdemeanor charges dropped. Little wonder that “new evidence” was “discovered” that led to charges being dropped in a he said /she said matter.
Apparently there wasn’t substantial evidence that matched the claims, not even a preponderance of evidence. That is the point.
The Rhodes application is a long process, involving multiple interviews, semi-socal events-I expect the Rhodes committee considered her comments in those settings as well as the written record in drawings its conclusion that she had misrepresented herself.
The woman’s high school tuition for junior year would have already been paid by the parent before the alleged incident. The tuition for senior year may have been paid by the parent or waived by the school. She did graduate from the private school she attended.
We are in near total disagreement regarding the young lady & her situation. Let’s just leave it at that since there is nothing in this thread to convince me otherwise (and I have read everything including all articles referenced by others).
