Lisa McPherson's Baby-watch logs

Telling logs are telling.

"The logs were released on the 9th of July 1997 over strong objections from Scientology's lawyers,
on orders from Circuit Judge James Moody Jr., hearing the McPherson estate's lawsuit"

If you don't know Lisa McPherson's story inside and out by now, do your homework.

Sauce: Lisa McPherson's baby-watch logs on whyaretheydead.net

heavy duty stuff. glad i read it but with great heartbreak. and i will read more and learn about this terrible crime ...started with the logs. then the depo.

Holy carp.
Very disturbing, the David Miscavidge $500,000 deal to get out of the court case should get reposted in here too.

If anyone ever needed more proof that Scientology education is not acceptable for modern education standards this is also quite an insight.

Also, "Around 1 AM punched out a person who was being assigned to do the watch."
fukn win girl, rest in peace, we will bring you justice.

Print the logs, the autopsy report, the pictures, make a short write-up, mass produce, put it in folders and spread it to medical professionals, med students, nursing students, members of the press, Amnesty International, mention that this happened in the cult of scientology's multimillion/billlion/whatever Mecca, that NOONE lifted a finger other than following the fucked up bullshit by Hubbard.

this affadavit chills me.

the lies are so bold-faced.

Q. I'll cut to the chase.
8 My understanding now is, from talking to many,
9 many witnesses, the purpose of her being there in the
10 Church, correct me if I'm wrong, she was experiencing some
11 mental problems, and you guys were going to stabilize her
12 through an isolation watch. And after that watch occurred,
13 there was going to be a procedure run on her, and the
14 procedure was an Introspection Rundown. Are you aware of
15 that?
16 A. I don't know. I don't know if the plan was to
17 have her have an Introspection Rundown.
18 Q. You didn't know then or you don't know now?
19 A. I don't know now. I didn't know then and I don't
20 know now if that was the plan or not. You may have heard
21 that testimony from somebody, that may be the case, but I
22 don't know that was a definite plan, that she had an
23 Introspection Rundown.
24 Q. All right, I find it unusual that the people at
25 the level of Church responsibility that I've talked to,
20

1 which would include 20 people that have various
2 responsibilities, involving housekeeping, all the way up to,
3 you know, librarians and you name it, would have that
4 knowledge and yet you wouldn't. You see what I'm saying?
5 find that to be a little unusual, that they would know that
6 there's a procedure, which is a fairly rare procedure --
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. -- that they would know that and the Chief of OSA
9 doesn't know. -
10 A. Right. Well, my understanding -- I didn't -- I
11 was never -- it was never reported to me that this was the
12 plan, that she was going to, as a definitive plan, that she
13 was going to have an Introspection Rundown. That's -- I've
14 not heard that that was the plan.
15 Q. Until this moment right now?
16 A. Well, I mean, if someone has testified that that
17 was the plan, then I'm not saying it wasn't, but I was --
18 correct, I've not been told and was not aware that that was
19 a definite plan that she was going to have an
20 Introspection Rundown.

this was in an interview with brian anderson, who was director of OSA in clearwater when lisa died.

"definite plan". like tommy davis' "that is unrecognizable to me".

RAGE.

That makes me want to cry. I knew the basic story, but reading those logs is so disturbing. Watching someone slowly murdered, day by day, knowing there were many people who, at any point, could have put a stop to it and didn't makes me want to wretch. People taking another's life in their own hands, feeding her drugs, starving her, sedating her around the clock....and they got away with it. Sick evil CULT.

Here's where Miscavige claims that the Lisa Mcpherson case would only cost the "church" $15,000 (fifteen thousand) maximum anyway, so offers $500,000 (yup, half a million dollars, no typo) to make it go away instead : Letter from David Miscavige to Bernie McCabe re: The Lisa McPherson criminal case -- 1/22/99

Bernie McCabe responds to David Miscavige's offer to settle the Lisa McPherson Criminal Case - 2/4/99 is the reply, which as it is smaller I'm pasting in

OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY SIXTH JUDICI.AL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
PASCO AND PINELLAS COUNTIES

February 4, 1999

Mr. David Miscavige
Chairman of the Board
Religious Technology Center

c/o Mr. Morris "Sandy" Weinberg, Jr., Esq.
401 E. Jackson Street

Suite 2525
Tampa, FL 33602

RE:
State of Florida vs. Church of Scientoloqy

Flag Service Organization, Inc.
CRC982O377CFANO S

Dear Mr. Miscavige:

I have received your letter of January 22, 1999 as well as the memorandum from Williams & Connelly to which your letter refers. While I do not agree with all of your comments concerning our prior discussions, Iwill concentrate on responding to the primary issues raised in your written proposal. You suggest that your intent is "peaceful" and, in deciding to respond in detail, we have taken you at your word. The initial "offer" made to Mr. Crow and Mr. Burgess, however, requested outright dismissal of the charges in exchange for a $500,000 donation to a local emergency medical care trust fund, repayment of investigative costs, enactment of certain corporate policies, and a somewhat ambiguous amount of "restitution" which was intended as some sort of reimbursement to my office rather than payment for the permissible financial losses, if there are any, suffered by the victim or her estate. Your oral proposal made clear that if we failed to accede to the requested dismissal, a "holy war" of litigation would result, lasting years and winnowing our office's human and financial resources.

I rejected this proposal but acceded to your request for a more direct discussion between you and your attorneys and me and my staff. Your offer in this second meeting restated essentially the same proposal with the caveat that only one charge (the second degree felony of abuse of a disabled adult) need be immediately dismissed. You were willing to accept Pre-Trial Intervention on the lesser felony of practicing medicine without a license, which, if successfully completed, would result in dismissal of that charge as well. After reflection, I also rejected that offer, and thoughtfully considered whether I should make a counter proposal. Ultimately, I decided not to do so.

Let me reiterate that I remain willing to entertain any reasonable proposals to resolve the pending criminal charges against the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. However, you have made it apparent that you will not consider any resolution except one that ensures that all charges are ultimately dismissed. Dismissal is not a proposal that we consider reasonable for a number of factors including our view of the seriousness of the underlying conduct. Therefore, until such time as a significantly different offer is on the table, I do not believe additional meetings would serve any purpose. I do not intend to become involved in repeated "bargaining" sessions, or make counteroffers that your inflexible position would mandate that you refuse, unless some area of common ground first appears.

As is apparent, our office disagrees with your assessment of the applicability and effect of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the instant charges. We are somewhat surprised that your letter and the letter/memorandum from Williams & Connelly continue to suggest that corporate charges with a maximum of $15,000 in fines are more onerous upon the "Church" as an entity, than imprisonment of high level, long time officials or corporate employees. (The use of quotation marks is not meant as disparagement but to distinguish the collective group of adherents to which you refer from the local corporation with which you claim no legal affiliation).

You have not suggested that the actions of "Flag" employees (which underlie the charges of culpable negligence and the illegal practice of medicine) were mandated by the religious doctrine or practices of Scientology; indeed your letter suggests that the Scientology practices were contravened. Nor have you suggested that completion of the prosecution will in any way impede any adherent's ability to believe what they wish or attend sessions at the Clearwater facilities as they see fit. Rather, you suggest that the embarrassment of other adherents resulting from any conviction or determination of corporate guilt should prohibit prosecution.

If the criminal charges are unjustified, then your talented entourage of lawyers can defend them on the merits. If, however, the charges are legally and factually appropriate, it seems unlikely to us that either the constitution or applicable statutes would bar a verdict against a corporation proven guilty of abuse or criminal negligence. We will, of course, carefully study the issues and case law presented by the Williams & Connelly memorandum to see if it alters our current perception of these issues.

It also appears to us that from the international perspective that you espouse, the "Church" and its members already have a significant history of being publicly associated with the criminal activity of "Church" employees. We are aware of public reports of past criminal convictions of high level U.S. Church members as well as criminal charges involving members employed by Scientology in Canada (1992), Spain (1994), France (1996) and Italy (1997). As you know, the Church of Scientology in Toronto was found guilty of corporate criminal activity. The "Church" has also reportedly been the subject of suits by former members and the subject of negative comments by governmental studies in Germany, Britain, New Zealand, Australia and Greece. We, therefore, do not believe that the negative association between the "Church" as a larger entity and the alleged criminal conduct of its employees can be attributed to our charging decision or that dismissal of valid criminal charges is appropriate to protect the "Church's" current reputation.

Your suggestion that your proposal will give us "much more" than we could ordinarily obtain implies that we should be more concerned with charitable contributions than assigning legal and moral responsibility for what happened to Lisa McPherson. Certainly, some of the conditions contained in your "compliance program" might be worthwhile initiatives. If, as you suggest, they will insure that the situation will not recur, I question why in the three years since Lisa's death they have not already been instituted and instead are offered as a bargaining position only after the filing of criminal charges against the corporation.

Moreover, I do not think it appropriate that our office or the "Church" dictate to a medical facility the appropriate or "allowed" treatment for a Church adherent. This decision should of course be left to the physician and individual patient, if he or she is mentally competent, or the next-of-kin or other legally authorized person if they are not.

Your suggestion that Mr. Crow has some improper personal interest in the case or that he somehow misled you as to the sincerity of our discussions is wholly unwarranted. When you first met with me, it was you who suggested that you were approaching us in confidentiality under the rule governing plea discussions, even though I questioned the applicability of those provisions where there was no offer to plead, but simply a request that the charges be abandoned. Mr. Crow's comments were initially made to insure that the possibility of future discussions would not be publicly asserted as grounds for delaying the arraignment or other court proceedings. If you are suggesting that, but for this conversation, you intended to publicly use your purportedly confidential discussions with our office to support a public relations effort, then I must question your motives in initially requesting the meeting. Neither Mr. Crow nor I have ever suggested that you or your attorneys refrain from making any other public comments about the facts or the charges or taking any other action you felt was necessary to defend yourself against public criticism.

There are also legitimate reasons for my requiring, once you have chosen to involve me directly in the discussions, that plea negotiations be persons who I have designated. In directing Mr.' Crow to communicate to you that I had ultimately decided not to make a counter offer, I did not authorize him to disclose in detail either my thought processes or those of other assistants who may have been privy to the decision.

Subsequent to a scheduled morning meeting with Judge Peters and Mr. Crow and after additional discussions with Mr. Crow, Mr. Fugate bypassed Mr. Crow and called a subordinate lawyer in an apparent attempt to glean further information. While I would not expect you to necessarily appreciate the significance of this, I believe Mr. Fugate certainly would have. In any event, I trust that Mr. Crow's last directive has made my wishes clear as to how any future plea discussions should be initiated.

Finally, your letter suggests, as your attorneys have threatened in previous correspondence, that you intend to assert what you believe to be the City of Clearwater's history of abusive actions against the Church as a defense to the criminal charges. This seems totally at odds with your repeated statements to us that pursuing the charges against the corporation will undo the good will currently existing between the Church and the City and that you were confident that City officials would welcome the resolution you propose. You also acknowledge "past mistakes" on the part of the "Church", an admission which at least suggests that the "attitudes" in question may have been partially engendered by the "Church's" own past errors or misconduct.

As my assistants informed your lawyers before the filing of charges, we remain willing to review any written submission and documents you care to make concerning the alleged animosity between the "Church" and Clearwater. At this time, we do not believe that such assertions are relevant to a prosecution based primarily on forensic evidence and the sworn testimony of corporation employees and "Church" members. I resent and reject the suggestion implicit in your letter and the letter from Williams & Connelly that this office is pursuing the instant charges for improper or illegal motives.

Once Judge Schaeffer has completed the Lyons trial, we will attempt to set the corporation's pending Motion for Statement of Particulars for hearing. In the interim, if you feel after receiving this response that there is sufficient common ground for plea discussions, then either I or my senior staff will be accessible to, you.

Sincerely,

Bernie McCabe
State Attorney

Bernie McCabe, have my babies.


Also, I am possibly more disgusted by the church of four than I have ever been before.

Hard to read but necessary.
Every time I read these I get so angry. Any one of those brainwashed culties could have saved her life.

Originally Posted by Bulle

Bernie McCabe, have my babies.


Also, I am possibly more disgusted by the church of four than I have ever been before.

please to be clarifying.

"church of four" ?? not a term i've seen before, or one I can find or the other mods awake atm recognise either, lol

Holy crap it sucks to see how blatant the abuse was.




side note, found this in there. may be useful

ony & Susan Alamo Foundation v. Sec. of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 105 S.Ct. 1953, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985) (Religious foundation which engages in commercial enterprises which include service stations, retail businesses, hog farms, construction companies, a motel, and a candy manufacturer is subject to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, even where foundation claims all of its activities are a part of its religious mission and foundation's employees claim not to want the protections of the Act)

I highly recommend that everyone read the information contained via the OP link. my righteous anger is boiling. I wont consider quiting this fight till these bastards pay.

My mom, Leslie Woodcraft was involved in this case and even did a security watch on Lisa soon before she died. When I found out about that, it was the last straw and what prompted me to work up the nerve to speak out. When my sister asked my mom about the case after Lisa had died, my mom responded that Lisa was "just some crazy girl". Scientology must be the most incompassionate "religion" out there.
Before we joined the sea org, my mom was wonderful and caring. This is what scientology and the sea org turns people into.