The Keepers - General Discussion

[Milburn Stone]

On 5/28/2017 at 9:57 PM, Eliz said:

Boy, I do not understand the point of this episode. If the main premise of the documentary is to make the case that Sister Cathy's murder was part of a cover-up for the sex crimes at Keough, then everything they have to say about these two other random guys undercuts that...My own opinion is that the show does not do a very good job connecting the sex crimes to the nun's murder.

I don't know where the show is going, but what if the truth is that the killing of Sister Cathy had nothing to do at all with the evil at Keough High? That wouldn't mean the second story (the murder) made the first story (the sex abuse) pointless. Both stories would be worth telling. Maybe especially so, because it would be telling us that evidence doesn't always lead where you think it's going to. If the show "does not do a very good job connecting the sex crimes to the nun's murder," maybe that's because, startlingly, there's no connection! (Would you have the show make a connection if there isn't one?)

Which all seems unlikely, I grant you, but that's where my mind started to go this episode.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Milburn Stone]

On 5/23/2017 at 3:56 PM, film noire said:

And I'm wondering if there are disappearances predating Sister Cathy's murder. Maybe she stumbled onto something even more menacing than Maskill's depravity (hard as it is to imagine that).

My mind's starting to go there. What if--unlikely as it seems--the murderer is nobody connected to anything we've seen! After all this, it turns out to be some crazy guy who was beaten by a nun when he was a kid and was just walking by. The message that would deliver about the sheer absurdity of life would be something. I wouldn't resent the show a bit if that's how it turns out, because the complete absurdity of life is also a tale worth telling.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Milburn Stone]

On 5/23/2017 at 5:29 PM, pamplemousse said:

Why is the Catholic Church and its population of priests such a hotbed for pedophiles? Does its culture create pedophiles or are pedophiles attracted to it because of the power over and opportunities to interact with children, or a combination of both?

I don't know, but I would suggest one possibility which is that the difference between the Catholic Church and other religions is not that the Catholic Church attracts pedophiles, but that it protects them. Just "blue-skying" this, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that Presbyterian churches, Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, etc. etc., all attract their share of bad apples. The difference is that these denominations get rid of them when malfeasance is found, and cooperate with law enforcement in their arrest and prosecution.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[film noire]

5 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I don't know, but I would suggest one possibility which is that the difference between the Catholic Church and other religions is not that the Catholic Church attracts pedophiles, but that it protects them. Just "blue-skying" this, but for the sake of discussion, let's say that Presbyterian churches, Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, etc. etc., all attract their share of bad apples. The difference is that these denominations get rid of them when malfeasance is found, and cooperate with law enforcement in their arrest and prosecution.

I think it also has to do with creating a clergy that attracts men who are willing to live with no sexual relationships, no marriage, no children, no stability (moved every few years at the whim of the church) no agency in major life decisions, no access to lifelong friendships on a day to day basis, and no financial freedom. That s likelier to attract troubled men, imo, than a clergy (male and female) which enjoys the whole range of human life in order to also serve God. 

[Scarlett45]

3 hours ago, film noire said:

I think it also has to do with creating a clergy that attracts men who are willing to live with no sexual relationships, no marriage, no children, no stability (moved every few years at the whim of the church) no agency in major life decisions, no access to lifelong friendships on a day to day basis, and no financial freedom. That s likelier to attract troubled men, imo, than a clergy (male and female) which enjoys the whole range of human life in order to also serve God. 

I also think the reason why these abusers end up in positions of power is because they are very intelligent and ambitious- they are attracted to the hierarchy of the clergy because it makes them the pipeline to God AND gives them positions of power, where as those that are joining the clergy for the "right reasons" are less likely to be the powerful/influential members because they are using their time/emotional/mental resources to serve the community, not advance their career. 

[Milburn Stone]

On 6/2/2017 at 3:46 AM, rabidchipmnk said:

I liked how they made it an explicit point how she recovered the memories on her own (which is more reliable)...

I would have liked that nailed down more than it was. We know from Jean's testimony that the primary memories of the abuse came to her on her own. We also have her statement that she prefers to meditate on these events on her own because an outside person hinders the process. But we also know that she was in therapy. It may be known whether she was in therapy before the memories came to her, or if she only sought therapy after the memories started coming back--but the show didn't tell us this. Either way, a possibility presents itself that the memory-process began for Jean when she was alone, but that once the memories started coming back, she was helped to remember more by her therapist. 

I must hasten to add I believe without question the most important part of Jean's memories, that terrible abuse happened to her at the hands of Maskell. My heart goes out to her, and I stand in awe of her courage--not just in taking this fight to the Church, but in facing what happened to her in the first place. And I believe the abuse happened to many others. The show was quite convincing on that score.

And that's why I found the show so moving. When I began reading this episode topic, I anticipated I'd see complaining that the murder wasn't solved. There is some, but by and large I feel "validated" that most people feel the same as me--that the show, at its core, wasn't even about Cathy's murder as much as it was about the horrific abuse and its systemic coverup. The murder was a way in to that story.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[film noire]

4 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I also think the reason why these abusers end up in positions of power is because they are very intelligent and ambitious- they are attracted to the hierarchy of the clergy because it makes them the pipeline to God AND gives them positions of power, where as those that are joining the clergy for the "right reasons" are less likely to be the powerful/influential members because they are using their time/emotional/mental resources to serve the community, not advance their career. 

You're right -- clergy who are genuinely devoted to a monastic life/serving their flock aren't also angling for power.

[lulee]

On 6/29/2017 at 11:28 AM, Milburn Stone said:

Do we know that Jean's were recovered outside of therapy? There have been a couple of moments when

  Hide contents

she refers to a therapist. (Apologies if these moments are in Episode 4--it's not a big spoiler even if they are, she makes the mention very much in passing--but I think they were in Episode 3.) She says something to the effect of, "I like to sit quietly because the thoughts don't come to me when I'm with my therapist."

Let me immediately add that in my gut, I believe Jean, no matter what her process of memory recovery was. So this is not about that. I just want to know as much truth as I can regarding how her memories were recovered. The documentarians are certainly leading us to believe that they were recovered outside of therapy.

All that said, I have a high level of trust in these documentarians.

I'm not sure. At least the initial memories of Magnus, Markell, and the Cathy were described as being triggered by the yearbook after talking with that other Keough alum. 

[Ellaria]

On 6/29/2017 at 0:05 AM, Milburn Stone said:

I had a different reaction. I was all set to hate her. But then I didn't. As D.A. her job was to bring cases she thought she could win. And that's as it should be. You don't want D.A.s ruining the lives of (possibly innocent) defendants bringing cases that can't be won. I bought that she didn't believe she had the goods to win a criminal prosecution against Maskell with no physical evidence after all these years.

As you point out, the DA had a difficult job. However, her demeanor was off-putting. I was hoping that she would express compassion for the victims ("These women suffered horrific abuse but there simply wasn't enough evidence...") but she didn't. It is now years later and she seemed to shrug it off. I expected more from her.

This show is very troubling. As both Spotlight and The Wire pointed out so well, when our institutions are left unchecked, common decency is ignored.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Ellaria Sand

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

As you point out, the DA had a difficult job. However, her demeanor was off-putting. I was hoping that she would express compassion for the victims ("These women suffered horrific abuse but there simply wasn't enough evidence...") but she didn't. It is now years later and she seemed to shrug it off. I expected more from her.

I hear you. Personally I found her demeanor understandable for a couple of reasons. (Which admittedly involve some mind reading on my part, which can also be called "putting myself in her shoes.") 1) She was defensive, because she had reason to be defensive. She implicitly was being accused of malfeasance, and she knew it, no matter how neutral the interviewer presented himself to be. People being accused will react defensively, especially when they believe the accusation is unfair and unwarranted. 2) I can't even imagine how much horror a State's Attorney for Baltimore sees in a given year. This eventually has to inure them to it. (Add in this imagined quote, which may have been happening in her mind: "Do you know how many black bodies I have to clean up after in a given year? And you want me to care especially about this one because she was white?") A State's Attorney might be able to give lip service to how moved they were by the circumstances of one particular case out of thousands, but lip service is probably all it would be. If she didn't try to fake it, I can forgive her for it.

Not saying that it wouldn't have been nice for her to say what you're suggesting. It would have been. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[bilgistic]

As an abuse survivor, I can attest that just about anything can trigger memories to surface--scents, songs, places revisited, conversations with phrases the abuser said, dreams, etc. I believe the science that says that the brain protects you from traumatic memories. Think about how accident victims often don't recall what happened after the fact.

[Clanstarling]

36 minutes ago, bilgistic said:

As an abuse survivor, I can attest that just about anything can trigger memories to surface--scents, songs, places revisited, conversations with phrases the abuser said, dreams, etc. I believe the science that says that the brain protects you from traumatic memories. Think about how accident victims often don't recall what happened after the fact.

I haven't had that specific experience, but I have had the experience of memories triggered by all of those. In some cases good, in other cases not so much. Occasionally it's an "aha" experience - "so that's why I hate xyz so much."

[lulee]

Cathy's typewritten letter: maybe she was a big fan of Atonement (jk)

After reading the comment above that Gerry told the alarming interrogation story "nonchalantly," I went back and rewatched parts of this episode. To me he look like he was containing but just barely his disgust. 

I feel like the focus on Gerry in the show was for a few reasons: the police had focused on him, he knew Cathy very well and hearing from him helped the viewer understand her, and he's one of the few principal players who are still alive  

Regarding the "vagina": there are enough bizarre and disturbing elements of this story for me to buy that the cop showed Koob *something* and said it was her vagina. Doesn't mean it was. On a very related note, did the medical examiner confirm that she was sexually assaulted? I don't recall it. There was discussion of her body being partially undressed, her head wound and how it didn't immediately kill her and the maggots. 

ETA: Dr  Spitz said that she had been "severely assaulted" after mentioning that her skirt was pulled up and her chest was  bare.   

The medical examiner seemed eccentric to me, but thorough and very fact based. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by lulee
Typos

[Ellaria]

On 5/28/2017 at 10:56 PM, OtterMommy said:

As you said, Skippy is a strange name for an adult (the only Skippy I ever knew was a dog, but whatever) and I highly doubt that anyone would name their child that. 

FWIW, I had a friend in college - in the late 70s - who was nicknamed Skippy. 

On 5/28/2017 at 10:57 PM, Eliz said:

Boy, I do not understand the point of this episode. If the main premise of the documentary is to make the case that Sister Cathy's murder was part of a cover-up for the sex crimes at Keough, then everything they have to say about these two other random guys undercuts that. 

And one of these stories  -- I think my uncle killed her and carried her out in a rug -- doesn't match up AT ALL with any of the facts of her murder. Of all the things that are unknown about the night she died, there's no suggestion by anyone ever that she was murdered in her apartment.

Although I found the speculation about Edgar-Billy-Skippy interesting, I don't see how it ties back into the abuse at Keogh. And perhaps, as @Milburn Stone says, it doesn't have to. Maybe it is enough to broaden the list of suspects. Someone killed Sr Cathy.

However, this looks a bit like a random list of possible suspects with little discernible motive. Ed is suspected because he was driving around the neighborhood one time trying to lure underage girls into a car and came home with a bloody shirt. Billy is suspected because he lived across the hall and his nephew had odd recollections years later.

I just don't know what to make of it. I also don't want to dismiss their family members who came forward to share their stories/suspicions. Ultimately, this is how crimes are solved. I'm just not sure that their stories will help solve this murder.

One quick question: in Brian's interview, he mentioned "Uncle Bobby." Who is that and had we heard about him previously? Random thought: could "Uncle Bobby" and "Brother Bob" be the same person?

So far, I have mixed feelings about this show. I am, of course, horrified by these events but some of the narrative is a bit disjointed. Regardless, this show has introduced me to a lot of truly remarkable women. I don't know where this show will go but I hope that these women will one day find the peace and justice that they seek and deserve.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Ellaria Sand

[bilgistic]

I don't remember the show saying she'd been sexually assaulted, but one of the many articles linked in the forums said she was.

[Ellaria]

On 6/3/2017 at 11:12 AM, skittl3862 said:

I don't think Gerry Koob is guilty. His reaction to all of this doesn't seem like someone who committed murder and covered it up. He's a former priest and now minister; he's hardly Robert Durst. I'm sure the police tried to nail it on "the boyfriend" back in 1969, but they didn't charge him. And a newbie priest Koob wasn't nearly important enough compared to Maskell to get special cover-up favors.

I liked that they showed the cop looking into the cold case was shook about the missing evidence. The fact that all the evidence involving Father Maskell and Sister Cathy has accidentally been destroyed or gone missing is inexcusable and highly suspicious.

I don't think that Koob is guilty either. However, there certainly are some odd elements in his re-telling, most obviously the "vagina." His letter from Cathy is strange, too. As @runjuliet says, would she have typed it? Assuming that Cathy was a modest person given her life and the times, would she have discussed her period with him? Where is that letter? (I'm confused by the re-enactment.)

I also don't believe that Cathy told Koob anything about the abuse allegations. I'm not sure that the show proved that she actually intended to do anything about it. And I am not blaming her, if that is the case. Given the nature of the abuse, the fact that it was 1969 and her youth and inexperience, figuring out the next step would have be challenging.

Evidence handling procedures of Baltimore Police are, at best, sloppy and, at worst, signs of a coverup. It seems that every piece of evidence that could circle back to Maskell's guilt is gone.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Ellaria Sand

[jacksgirl]

Binge watched, really liked it. Jean and her Keo classmates are heroes. The collusion between the police, church and the legal system in Baltimore is tragic. Hopefully victims rights groups will continue to fight for longer statute of limitations in these crimes. Shame on the Catholic Church for their coverup.  There are bad people in all professions, but it isn't the crime,  it's the coverup. We will never know about Sister Cathy. I tend to believe Jean saw Cathy's body.  

[Ellaria]

On 6/4/2017 at 1:01 AM, Shorty186 said:

Regarding Brian Schmidt's story, he didn't mention his father being there at all, right? Just his Uncle Billy and other uncle. But his mom and sister only mention his father coming home bloody, so there's a big inconsistency there. I wonder how old he was supposed to be at the time. 

There are so many moving pieces and people involved, I almost feel like I need Gemma's coffee filter map myself. 

I'm confused about Brian's story. I believe that you are correct: his recollection didn't mention his father's involvement but instead brought up Uncle Bobby. His mother and sister mention his father but not Uncle Bobby. I don't want to dismiss his (or anyone's) recollections since memory is such an essential part of this entire story. However, his recollections are different than what others provided about the night that Cathy went missing. It comes down to who do you believe.

Sr Russell claimed that Cathy went shopping that night, grew concerned when Cathy didn't return home and called Koob and McKeon. If Brian's recollections are correct, then it would suggest that Sr Russell may have called Koob and McKeon after Billy was in the apartment and then together they created the lie about Cathy's shopping trip. And this is understandable, IMO. Sr Russell must have been terribly frightened if she witnessed what Brian claims occurred in that apartment. Did Brian mention seeing or hearing about priests being in the apartment?

I was bothered by the interviews with Ed. Can anything that he said be of value? I don't want to speculate but he appears to be a troubled man whether it is a product of mental illness or something else. There is no proof that Cathy purchased that necklace. So trying to link him to her murder thru it seems like a stretch.

I'm not sure who murdered Cathy. I don't know if it will ever be solved because so much information has been hidden, lost or ignored. Regardless, this murder mystery provided us with many more tragic stories that also seem to be without appropriate resolution.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Ellaria Sand

[Rhondinella]

Jean telling her story in a national forum is the single bravest act of courage it's ever been my honor to witness. She has earned my undying respect.

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I'm not sure who murdered Cathy. I don't know if it will ever be solved because so much information has been hidden, lost or ignored. Regardless, this murder mystery provided us with many more tragic stories that also seem to be without appropriate resolution.

I agree, unless the show itself, or the Facebook group that has exploded as a result of the show, brings someone forward who either says "I did it" or "I know who did it because they told me."

Speaking of that Facebook group...I made the mistake of going there. :) Mistake, because the voices of reason among the commenters are so few and far between. There are one or two women who are saying, "Wait a minute, let's take a look at what the show proved, and what it didn't prove. Let's take a look at the difference between some of Jean's recovered memories and actual evidence." And then those one or two women get shouted down by a thousand other posters, who appear not to actually understand what those women are saying but comment as if righteous indignation is the same as understanding. It made me grateful for this group, where rationality and logic still have a prayer.

[Scarlett45]

On 7/7/2017 at 6:52 AM, Ellaria Sand said:

I don't think that Koob is guilty either. However, there certainly are some odd elements in his re-telling, most obviously the "vagina." His letter from Cathy is strange, too. As @runjuliet says, would she have typed it? Assuming that Cathy was a modest person given her life and the times, would she have discussed her period with him? Where is that letter? (I'm confused by the re-enactment.)

I also don't believe that Cathy told Koob anything about the abuse allegations. I'm not sure that the show proved that she actually intended to do anything about it. And I am not blaming her, if that is the case. Given the nature of the abuse, the fact that it was 1969 and her youth and inexperience, figuring out the next step would have be challenging.

Evidence handling procedures of Baltimore Police are, at best, sloppy and, at worst, signs of a coverup. It seems that every piece of evidence that could circle back to Maskell's guilt is gone.

It's been established Gerry was her boyfriend, they were both considering leaving their orders to be together  & marry. She told him about her period as a discreet way of confirming she was NOT pregnant. "My period arrived ten days late, but it's here" translates to...."I thought I could be pregnant but no need to worry"

I think a lot do Gerry's recollections are clouded by his own guilt regarding his entire relationship with Cathy (they shouldn't have been together in the first place), guilt over her death (he wasn't there to protect her) and the delay in his decision to leave the priesthood (yes he left any way, but if he had made a decision a month or two before Cathy may still be alive and his wife). 

[Ellaria]

10 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

...they were both considering leaving their orders to be together  & marry.

Do we know this for sure? Perhaps I am forgetting something but I *think* that we only have Koob's word on it. Has anyone else see that letter?

Edited July 9, 2017 by Ellaria Sand

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Do we know this for sure? Perhaps I am forgetting something but I *think* that we only have Koob's word on it. Has anyone else see that letter?

It was confirmed by a 3rd party they were involved. While I don't think the 3rd would've have witnessed them having intercourse I see no reason why Gerry would lie about their plans to be together. Especially given that Cathy was getting experience living in the "outside world" and sharing an apartment with a roommate. She had ample opportunities to be with him outside of the watchful eye of her superiors. 

After the sex abuse scandals came to light the general public became dillusioned regarding priests, but nuns are still revered. I'm sure most nuns took their vows seriously, but they are still people- many broke their vows of chasitity or left to persue a secular life. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

The Keepers received one Emmy nomination:

OUTSTANDING DOCUMENTARY OR NONFICTION SERIES

[Dorne2.0]

On 22/05/2017 at 10:15 AM, teddysmom said:

I watched the whole series yesterday. I stopped after Epi 3 but just had to finish it when I got home. I won't spoil but this is like the movie Spotlight x 1,000,000. Not to insult anyone's faith or religion, but I just don't have the slightest idea how anyone can be affiliated with the Catholic Church. I know not all priests are bad, but the fact that there is institutional corruption from the Vatican down. If it was money or politics that's one thing, but doing this to children, and covering it up and lying and God know what else. And for police, prosecutors & politicians to be complicit is even more infuriating.

I loved the attorney who was told as a child she was a heathen for not being Catholic. Take your holier than thou bullshit and shove it.

I never stepped in a Catholic Church again after the abuses and the cover-up by the Church came to light when I was a teenager. I am the oldest grandchild of a large Catholic family and all I could think was "it could have been my sister, it could have been one of my cousins". The fact that the Church kept transferring the priests and they continued to abuse kids wherever they went, and lying to the victims - that was disgusting. I actually tried to make my family stop giving money to the Church as well as refusing to go. I just can't. Until they start handing pedophiles to the police - actually it's too late. I am an apostate. I disagree with them on everything anyway, abortion, homosexuality, the role of women, divorce, euthanasia. I guess I was a Catholic just because I was born in a Catholic family and it was a cultural thing more than anything, I'm not even sure I believe there's a God, sometimes I think of all the suffering in the world and I lean to atheism, but when I feel lost and depressed about the evils of the world or some personal problem like the health conditions of some family members I find comfort in praying, I don't pray Holy Marys and other Catholic prayers though, it is just like a conversation. Sometimes I think of life ending after death I feel comforted too. I mean if it is how it was before I existed I'm fine, I won't know anyway, seems like true peace.

ATA: One thing I am sure is that I will not bring children into this world.  

Quote

And that retired cop - the one with the Kris Kringle beard, hesitant speech and dead eyes? -- he so fucking knows everything. Everything.

Oh yes, he knows and it is eating him up inside. I was thinking, that guy needs to be on suicide watch.  Sometimes it looked liked he was about to cry. I figure he had to keep his mouth shut out of fear or because of some code of loyalty to his colleagues but feels guilty and ashamed. And now people are digging up the case and the community and his family may find out.

And I am sorry that priest did that to you.  The only time I was alone with a priest was when I was thirteen and had to confess to receive my First Communion. I never confessed again, the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals were out and soon after that I stopped going to church. I only did the first communion thing to please my parents and grandparents. I went to Catholic School but was never a strong believer and used to get my teachers mad with my liberal opinions, I asked a lot of questions too. I remember one of my teachers saying the Virgin Mary was just a bit older than us (I was 10) when God made her pregnant with Jesus and that totally creeped me out. And the teacher asked if we would be as brave and faithful and accept the will of God like her and I remember feeling very guilty. I just thought, couldn't he have chosen an older woman? Was it so important that she be a virgin that he had to go for a child because people married young back then? 

Edited July 19, 2017 by Dorne2.0

[Triple P]

On 5/21/2017 at 4:45 PM, kieyra said:

...and I'm annoyed that we all know this case will never be considered as desperately important as the case of what's his name from Making a Murderer, or Adnan. The outrage won't be there. You know, it's just raped and murdered women. 

 

On 5/29/2017 at 7:21 PM, rabidchipmnk said:

But all of these cases dealt with murdered women...?

All of these cases do deal with murdered women, but the difference is that the documentary about Steven Avery and the podcasts about Adnan Sayed focus on exonerating men that may have been falsely convicted of murdering a woman, not about seeking justice for the murdered woman. The outrage generated is for the men, not the murdered women, Teresa Halbach and Hae Min Lee.

Teresa Halbach and Hae Min Lee are relegated to secondary characters in the stories of their own deaths, in the effort to show that the men were wrongly convicted.

The Keepers would have been a very different documentary if the focus had been on clearing Maskell's name instead of seeking justice for Sister Cathy and the abuse victims at Keough.

[Superpole2000]

Jean was a star. She could have been the entire episode, and I would have been fine with that. Actually, the episode would have been much better overall if she was the entire episode. Her story, and her ability to tell her story, was unforgettable.

I feel the episode ran at least 10 minutes too long. The beginning was particularly drawn out. By the tenth minute, we were still hearing about how large the school's gym was, which just didn't seem necessary. I fear this series might suffer from being a bit boring, despite the important subject matter. Sometimes less is more.

[Superpole2000]

On 5/30/2017 at 3:27 PM, iMonrey said:

Well, I wouldn't want to live in a world where anybody could just walk into a police station (for example) and say "so-and-so raped me 20 years ago" and the police automatically jumped up, ran out and arrested that person. An accusation alone should not be sufficient evidence for anything. 

Now, having watched the entire series, I know this whole corroboration thing comes full circle. My comments are limited to the ideal of "evidence." She didn't really have any evidence at that point. 

I agree. They shouldn't arrest someone based on one accusation. However...

On 5/30/2017 at 9:06 AM, rabidchipmnk said:

The problem with this is, even independent of the revelation above, is that it puts the onus on the VICTIM to get things done. Nuh uh. You have diocese resources, YOU find the corroboration, if you actually care about doing the right thing and helping the victim(s). But we all know that has NEVER been their priority. Ugh, I'm getting angry all over again now.

I agree, and I think the best response to an accusation is to facilitate or lead a genuine investigation, where finding the truth (and not protecting the status quo) is the goal.

[Dorne2.0]

I confess I haven't been able to watch another episodes. Jean's story was on my mind for days. One one word keeps coming back to me: unforgivable. That the church would cover for these sick people, that they would promise the families the priests would never work with children again just to transfer them to another place where they would just abuse other kids In one of the articles user film noire linked to:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126192996

And if you google the nams in this article, you find more awful information:

https://rapevictimsofthecatholicchurch.wordpress.com/category/father-jules-convert/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-silence/timeline/

And there are more and more stories.

And then what I've discovered over time is that it's far from a pattern. It's a practice. And after you worked in four or five places, you've heard enough priest confessions and you've seen enough news reports, this is just the way it's done, by geographically moving the guys around.

 

Quote

 

This is not a patina, this is not an exterior thing. This is an internal part of the Catholic institution. 

 

 

Quote

 No - there's no accountability because the secret to the celibate system is that almost everybody's sexual. And if everybody's sexual, everyone's got a story that can be told about them. So, the problem that you have is that the bishops ultimately can't enforce the law because they themselves are not ultimately celibate. I mean, there have been over 20 bishops in the United States removed because they themselves were child abusers.

When I goggled a priest linked in the article I found this:

 

Quote

In the 1960s and 70s, almost an entire generation of Alaska Native children in the village of St. Michael were sexually abused by Catholic priests and church workers. Here's information on the history of the abuse, legal actions taken by the survivors, and how the child abuse crimes in Alaska fits into the larger story of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.

https://rapevictimsofthecatholicchurch.wordpress.com/category/father-jules-convert/

And this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-silence/timeline/

I Google some names in the article and I cannot find it again but one bishop actually appointed a pedophile priest he knew had abused kids before to lead boycotts.

Honestly, I don't know if I can keep watching this...wich my OCD and tendency to depression. I am glad I watched it so far because my family has been trying to woo me back to the Church this new Pope is very charismatic and all. But no Way, I mean two close friends of Pope John Paul were discovered to be molesters and dealt with by Pope Benectic, father Marcial Maciel and a Polish priest or Cardinal, can't remember his name, I think. My parents have a big picture of Pope John Paul II hanging on their wall. 

The point is that thousands of kids were abused by priests the Church knew had abused before and I hold the whole institution responsible for it. And the word that comes to my mind is unforgivable.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Dorne2.0

[kieyra]

@Dorne2.0, consider doing what some people have mentioned -- let the series stream on mute or whatever, and leave the room. That way Netflix sees more people watching the whole thing it in their stats. 

I think I'm going to let it play in the background again soon.

[Dorne2.0]

Excellent idea. More people need to know this happened. I'll do that.

 I just want to add to the list of scandals and documentaries film noire mentioned the famous "Deliver us from Evil". One of the girls abused had parents that were so close to the priest accused, they paied for his laywers until their daughter told them he had raped her since she was five years old. The abuse stopped when she was around 10. And he had abused a girl from the same age before and she an her parents had come to the Church and they promised them he would never be left around kids again. The pain of those victims and their family left me sobbing. They went to the Vatican to talk to Pope Benedict and he refused to received them, let alone listen to them. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Dorne2.0
spelling

[Dorne2.0]

On 22/05/2017 at 11:00 AM, YoSaffBridge said:

And this is precisely why, no matter my nascent attachments to ritual and symbolism of the church, I will never be a practicing Catholic again. I absolutely cannot belong to a church that puts their image above the people who believe in the institution with all their souls.

A few years ago, a story came out here about a man in my area who was receiving one of the settlements the church was giving out. The man had been sexually abused by a priest. His mother believed him, the church did nothing to help. He tried to overdose at the altar of the church where I received my first communion. He survived it, and was even the janitor at my Catholic elementary school. That church doesn't exist any more, but I knew if it did, I could never watch a priest consecrate the sacraments without thinking about that man and what they did to him.

I haven't started the series yet, but my heart is so broken for poor Jean. She had so much taken from her that can't be given back.

Well said. Same here. I will never enter a Catholic Church again. Thousands of kids were abused by priests they knew had abused before. I hold the whole institution responsible for it. You know damn well Cardinal Law was protected by Pope John Paul because he knew about people higher up being involved in or even ordering the cover-up.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Dorne2.0

[Superpole2000]

On 7/22/2017 at 10:29 AM, Triple P said:

All of these cases do deal with murdered women, but the difference is that the documentary about Steven Avery and the podcasts about Adnan Sayed focus on exonerating men that may have been falsely convicted of murdering a woman, not about seeking justice for the murdered woman. The outrage generated is for the men, not the murdered women, Teresa Halbach and Hae Min Lee.

Teresa Halbach and Hae Min Lee are relegated to secondary characters in the stories of their own deaths, in the effort to show that the men were wrongly convicted.

The Keepers would have been a very different documentary if the focus had been on clearing Maskell's name instead of seeking justice for Sister Cathy and the abuse victims at Keough.

You are implying that there is a gender bias here. That's not what causes the different level of interest. The interest in the other cases was more of the mystery aspect...the "What do you think happened?" or "Which side are you on?" aspect. In this particular documentary, we kind of know the bad guys, so there isn't much mystery in that area of the case. The compelling part of this documentary is the cover up and how some of the victims have fought back.

Also, the Amanda Knox case, which has its own set of documentaries, is proof that people will be interested in a female version of "Did she do it?"

[Milburn Stone]

6 minutes ago, Superpole2000 said:

You are implying that there is a gender bias here. That's not what causes the different level of interest. The interest in the other cases was more of the mystery aspect...the "What do you think happened?" or "Which side are you on?" aspect. In this particular documentary, we kind of know the bad guys, so there isn't much mystery in that area of the case. The compelling part of this documentary is the cover up and how some of the victims have fought back.

On the subject of whether we kind of know the bad guys, it depends on what badness we're talking about here. The sex abuse? We definitely know the bad guy and have a very good sense of his enablers. On the subject of the murder(s), I don't think we have a clue (literally), although we can speculate till the cows come home. (Including speculating about perpetrators the documentary never even touched on.)

And that's OK with me, because I thought the main subject of the series was the abuse.

[Captanne]

As far as focus -- this series seemed to me to be telling the story of two women who wanted to find out what happened to their friend; at its most fundamental "plotline".  During their investigation, they find two things.  1.  That she was probably murdered by Father Maskell and his conspirators.  2.  That Father Maskell, himself, opened up a whole Pandora's Box of stories to be investigated and told.

 

So, for me -- it started as a simple investigation into a friend's death and ended up like one of those family tree diagrams (they used coffee filters) branching off from the probable killer and then the whole kettle of fish he opened up.  Two separate but connected branches of the same tree.

So, is it about a murder and the identity of the killer?  Yes.  It's also about the abuse.

[Triple P]

On 7/26/2017 at 5:26 AM, Superpole2000 said:

You are implying that there is a gender bias here. That's not what causes the different level of interest. The interest in the other cases was more of the mystery aspect...the "What do you think happened?" or "Which side are you on?" aspect. In this particular documentary, we kind of know the bad guys, so there isn't much mystery in that area of the case. The compelling part of this documentary is the cover up and how some of the victims have fought back.

Also, the Amanda Knox case, which has its own set of documentaries, is proof that people will be interested in a female version of "Did she do it?"

It is not a matter of whether or not there is outrage or interest based on the gender of the alledged murderer. I disagree that interest in the Avery and Sayed cases is due only to the mystery aspect.

There is continued interest in Knox because there are lingering questions regarding her exoneration. One of the reasons there are still questions  of "Did she or didn't?" is the salacious reporting that cast Knox as the femme fatale.

Where continued interest in the Knox case differs from the Avery and Sayed cases is that many of the current documentaries regarding Knox take the point of view that she may be guilty and got away with it or maybe she isn't guilty and she was rightfully released from prison.

This is very different from "Making a Murderer", which takes the view that Avery was framed and is definitely not guilty, and different from the podcasts that came after Serial that also take the view that Sayed is not guilty and was wrongfully convicted. For the most part, Serial too presented that Sayed is not guilty.

Perhaps there will be additional documentaries regarding Sister Cathy and the Keough students, but what form will it take? Outrage for the victims? Outrage for the accused? 

If not for gender bias, why is there more outrage for and reporting on men that have been abused by Catholic priests than women that have been abused?

[NumberCruncher]

4 hours ago, Triple P said:

If not for gender bias, why is there more outrage for and reporting on men that have been abused by Catholic priests than women that have been abused?

There is?  I must have missed the louder outrage for male victims...it all seems pretty outrageous from what I've observed.  If there's a disparity in the number of male victims vs. female victims reported I would chalk that up to more opportunity (i.e. the prevalence of altar boys dealing directly/privately with priests in comparison to girls) than any kind of media gender bias.

[OtterMommy]

1 hour ago, NumberCruncher said:

There is?  I must have missed the louder outrage for male victims...it all seems pretty outrageous from what I've observed.  If there's a disparity in the number of male victims vs. female victims reported I would chalk that up to more opportunity (i.e. the prevalence of altar boys dealing directly/privately with priests in comparison to girls) than any kind of media gender bias.

I agree with this and I also think that the media leans towards more sensational items and, sadly, stories of male victims fall seem to fit that category more than stories of female victims (and there is all sorts of wrong with that and I am in no way defending it...)

[halkatla]

On 20.5.2017 at 2:08 AM, Arynm said:

There were 50 priests that were known abusers in Baltimore and only one was convicted? He was only convicted because he plead guilty. That is police/DA incompetence or flat out collusion. If the Archdioce (sp) is saying these priest are abusers, then they are. Shirley May or whatever her name is has to be one of the worst liars I have ever seen. She knew exactly what was going on and still didn't prosecute. There is a special place in hell for her. Maskell was walked out in handcuffs and there are no records? The records that Maskell buried were in a flooded room and ruined? I thought they were ruined before they even pulled them out of the ground. This whole case stinks.

 

The DA Shirley May? Total fucking liar.

 

This is exactly what I came here to say. Her smirk is so evil.

And I´ve lost count of all the true crime shows and books I´ve read where valuable or inconvenient evidence is said to have been ruined in a flood. I´ve begun to doubt all those accounts, okay, maybe 1 in 10 was really lost when a station burned down or was flooded, but I think it´s just something that is said when a conspiracy is going on to protect certain suspects (like elite pedos, most often).

[jelaine]

Maybe I'm weird, but my first thought on hearing about Ed was that he was "Brother Bob."  

Do love the points brought up about Brian's interview not really matching up with the facts that we know about the case because I truly did not catch them at the time.

[jadecorleone]

On 5/24/2017 at 10:41 AM, IndianPaintbrush said:

Richard Sipe is a psychotherapist who has done extensive research on priests and sexuality.  The Boston Globe's Spotlight team used him in their reporting.  According to Sipe, the culture of celibacy and repressed sexuality is the main problem:

I can see how this would be a huge problem for priests who were ordained before the 1960s. They were more likely to go straight from high school to seminary with no sexual experience. Add in a culture where pedophilia isn't talked about and the long-term effects on children aren't understood, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Sometime ago HBO did a documentary on this very subject (cant remember the name) and it mentioned in great detail on how back then, anything remotely sexual was dirty and must be supressed. I think it even talked in detail about devices that were put on young people to prevent them from misbehaving and these were rather horrific devices.  I remember watching it and having to stop a few times because I thought I was gonna be sick, hearing all the stories from survivors. 

[Mrs Shibbles]

On 5/28/2017 at 11:03 AM, iMonrey said:

As horrific as it is to go through what Jean went through, I completely understand why authorities (whether police or the diocese) were telling her they needed corroboration from other witnesses. I mean, I totally believe her and they probably did too, but the cold fact of the matter is you can't just get someone fired or arrested on your say-so. Otherwise, anybody in the world could just go to the cops, or the church hierarchy, or their boss, make an accusation against someone and get them suspended or fired by making up a story about them because they had some kind of beef against them. 

Obviously I'm not saying that's what Jean was doing, but if you think of the ramifications of it, there's a reason why hard evidence is needed to take action against someone. 

 

On 5/30/2017 at 8:06 AM, rabidchipmnk said:

Yes. This. Those fuckers.

The problem with this is, even independent of the revelation above, is that it puts the onus on the VICTIM to get things done. Nuh uh. You have diocese resources, YOU find the corroboration, if you actually care about doing the right thing and helping the victim(s). But we all know that has NEVER been their priority. Ugh, I'm getting angry all over again now.

 

On 5/30/2017 at 7:02 AM, mahree said:

I don't know if you've watched the whole thing, but 

  Hide contents

the Church HAD corroboration - that kid whose mom went to the diocese and demanded action after he reported Maskell's abuse to her.  What did they do?  Move him to Keough, where he was free to molest all those girls, including Jean.

 

I'm just now watching this.  

 

I don't doubt one bit that the Diocese, and possibly the police already had corroboration in this case, but they told the victims that they to provide it so that they would give up pursuing it.  

[Chel]

  On 7/6/2017 at 7:26 AM, Ellaria Sand said:

As you point out, the DA had a difficult job. However, her demeanor was off-putting. I was hoping that she would express compassion for the victims ("These women suffered horrific abuse but there simply wasn't enough evidence...") but she didn't. It is now years later and she seemed to shrug it off. I expected more from her.

I hear you. Personally I found her demeanor understandable for a couple of reasons. (Which admittedly involve some mind reading on my part, which can also be called "putting myself in her shoes.") 1) She was defensive, because she had reason to be defensive. She implicitly was being accused of malfeasance, and she knew it, no matter how neutral the interviewer presented himself to be. People being accused will react defensively, especially when they believe the accusation is unfair and unwarranted. 2) I can't even imagine how much horror a State's Attorney for Baltimore sees in a given year. This eventually has to inure them to it. (Add in this imagined quote, which may have been happening in her mind: "Do you know how many black bodies I have to clean up after in a given year? And you want me to care especially about this one because she was white?") A State's Attorney might be able to give lip service to how moved they were by the circumstances of one particular case out of thousands, but lip service is probably all it would be. If she didn't try to fake it, I can forgive her for it.

Not saying that it wouldn't have been nice for her to say what you're suggesting. It would have been. 

(And you want me to care especially about this one because she was white?") But at this point there were 40-50 women that had come forward, not just one. She was paid off by someone, cops or the church. Take your pick.

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, Chel said:

(And you want me to care especially about this one because she was white?") But at this point there were 40-50 women that had come forward, not just one. She was paid off by someone, cops or the church. Take your pick.

Just to be precise, the D.A.'s purview did not include the sexual misconduct, which is what the 40-50 women came forward about. The statute of limitations had run out on that. The D.A.'s purview was strictly limited to the murder(s). And on that crime, she felt she lacked the evidence to secure a conviction.

[methodwriter85]

On 5/30/2017 at 10:19 PM, ladle said:

Jean should be played by Glenn Close! 

She should, but the part would totally go to Meryl Streep.

[Rlb8031]

On 6/4/2017 at 9:12 PM, ElleMo said:

I can understand why the parents trusted the priest to counsel their daughters.  It was how they were raised and was the societal norm at the time.  But who the hell thinks it is ok for a priest to take their child to a gyn.  (Or any doctor for that matter?)

My assumption was that 1) the OB-GYN was indeed an on-call abortionist (and provider of necessary birth control in some cases) and 2) the trips to the doctor were just another thing none of the girls talked about. I mean, it was the 60's in an all-girls school. If any of the girls that weren't getting abused ever found out it would not have been a secret for long...

[Rlb8031]

On 6/29/2017 at 11:04 PM, Milburn Stone said:

I don't know where the show is going, but what if the truth is that the killing of Sister Cathy had nothing to do at all with the evil at Keough High? That wouldn't mean the second story (the murder) made the first story (the sex abuse) pointless. Both stories would be worth telling. Maybe especially so, because it would be telling us that evidence doesn't always lead where you think it's going to. If the show "does not do a very good job connecting the sex crimes to the nun's murder," maybe that's because, startlingly, there's no connection! (Would you have the show make a connection if there isn't one?)

Which all seems unlikely, I grant you, but that's where my mind started to go this episode.

I thought that the murder may have been not so much to hide the priest/student sex scandal, but more to hide the "important men being provided young girls for sex" scandal. Think about it, if Brother Bob was someone high up in the police, or a local politician, the impetus for the murder may have been to keep his name from coming out. Then it would make sense that Maskell would go find these local no-goodnicks from the parish that he knew from his time as a local priest to do his dirty work. And according to the girls the number of men was large and varied and included me in uniform, so that portion of the cover up could have been the driver and not so much what was happening strictly with the members of the church.

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, Rlb8031 said:

I thought that the murder may have been not so much to hide the priest/student sex scandal, but more to hide the "important men being provided young girls for sex" scandal. Think about it, if Brother Bob was someone high up in the police, or a local politician, the impetus for the murder may have been to keep his name from coming out. Then it would make sense that Maskell would go find these local no-goodnicks from the parish that he knew from his time as a local priest to do his dirty work. And according to the girls the number of men was large and varied and included me in uniform, so that portion of the cover up could have been the driver and not so much what was happening strictly with the members of the church.

This theory is as good as any, but as I gained more distance from the show (it's been some time now since I watched it), I wondered if the show really established that Sister Cathy was going to "talk" if she weren't silenced. Certainly that's the implication; we know some of the girls talked to her about the abuse, and because our sympathies are with Sister Cathy as the murder victim, we want to believe that she was going to do something about it. We also connect the fact that she left the school with a presumption that she found the abuse unacceptable. But do we have evidence (or even any reason to suppose) that she went to Maskill to say "I know what you did"? And that therefore Maskill or any of the other men in the room feared her enough to want her dead? There's just as much reason to suppose that Cathy was repulsed by the horrors, left the school because of them, but never once confronted anyone or brought the matter to anyone's attention, because of her fear of the Church.

Which would make her murder a separate crime.

Apologies in advance if my distance from the show has made me forget any evidence that showed that Cathy made Maskill aware of her knowledge, but I don't remember any.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode.

 

Can Any More Injustice Occur On The Keepers?

According to Jean Hardagon Wehner, you don't know the half of it.

[Rlb8031]

On 6/6/2017 at 4:25 PM, MaryWebGirl said:

I feel like they never made it clear exactly what happened. I forgot who said it fairly early in the series that Cathy and Russell sort of requested living outside of the convent and working at a public school, but I honestly doubt that. I imagine they did make waves about Maskell, and the move was a compromise their superiors came up with. I'm sure the school wouldn't just let a well-liked, energetic teacher waltz off to the public sector. 

The one thing that we need to keep in mind is that there was/is a ton of "small p" politics within the church itself. When I heard that the nuns had been permitted to try this experiment, I initially thought "yep, that was those progressive 60's nuns for you". Then later on when they said that the principal at Keough who took over from the Mother Superior who was there when Cathy and Russell were present was able to get Maskell out within a couple of days of arriving, I realized that the whole thing may have been that Maskell had more pull with the higher-ups in the diocese and so the Mother Superior was trying to get Cathy (and perhaps Russell??) out of the school - either to protect them, or to stop them from making a fuss. So the entire reason for them being put out for this year of life in a regular school setting might have been to perhaps ease them out of the church before they had to make their final vows. It didn't work because Cathy was still 1) unsure about how she felt about her final vows and 2) in contact with and a confidant for girls at the school.