Commentary and Analysis

Raiders of the Lost Rosses

The media coverage about the "Ross Saga" and Sister Plante's scapegoating has been going on since 1994, with investigative reporters from the Boston Globe, WCVB-TV's "Chronicle", Fall River, Winchester and Providence, RI running in circles around each other trying to unravel the mystery. Much of this "investigation" has been sorely hampered by the massive smokescreen of misdirection and confusion that the Samaritans/FRNB have managed to blow up around the case. In particular, the Samaritans/FRNB have, right from the start, deliberately sent journalists on a frantic search for the "real identity" of General Ross and his family by creating the impression that all of their concerns revolved around this point and this point only. But when you look at what the Samaritans/FRNB actually go on record as saying, you find them contradicting themselves over and over again.

Do the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford really suspect that the Ross family does not exist? Well...which way is the wind blowing today? When Elaine Ross was sending them checks that they refused to cash, they thought she existed. They just didn't think her alleged corporation, named on the checks, really existed. They knew someone was sending them letters and talking to them by telephone about services rendered to her son as a hotline client of their agency. They seemed to be in agreement that some relationship existed between their client and Mrs. Ross. They accepted a plaque from the Rosses in 1992, and placed it on display in their offices. When Ellie Leite confronted the Ross supporters in the June 15, 1994 meeting, among her hysterical accusations to Susan Lyman was that Mrs. Lyman "knew who the Rosses really were" but was lying about it. Ellie Leite is also alleged to have said that she "didn't want Mrs. Ross' limousine pulling up outside her door." That sounds very much as if Mrs. Leite believed there was a real, if pseudonymous, Mrs. Ross.

But, when the Samaritans/FRNB seemingly wanted to create a false impression to Bishop O'Malley and the media that Sister Plante was mentally incompetent, they changed their story. Suddenly it was convenient to say that they suspected there was no Ross family, and that Sister Plante was a key member of some kind of sinister conspiracy to fictionalize the entire situation.

Then, when the Samaritans/FRNB wanted everyone to see that there was a real Mrs. Ross who had been harassing them by sending dozens of checks and letters, purportedly from different people but "obviously" all sent from one source, they had no qualms about displaying those letters and checks in the Boston Globe and on "Chronicle". The fact that this was a flagrant violation of the Samaritans/FRNB's stated policy of absolute confidentiality for all clients, families of clients, and donors, did not bother the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford at all (although other chapters of the Samaritans were very bothered indeed). Now "Mrs. Ross" was the shadow figure masterminding the entire fraudulent "praise campaign".

So which is it? Do the Samaritans/FRNB believe there is a Ross family, whose real identity the Samaritans/FRNB must suspect of being the darkest and most dangerous of underworld clans? Or do the Samaritans/FRNB believe there is no Ross family, in which case the family poses no danger to them at all--but someone else has a completely incomprehensible reason for concocting a set of non-existent mystery figures? Or do the Samaritans/FRNB claim that the Rosses are a real family running a scheme against the Samaritans/FRNB that rivals "The X-Files" for complexity and sheer irrationalism?

Which is the most convenient for the Samaritans/FRNB to claim today?

Do the Samaritans/FRNB believe that "Michael Ross" does not exist? First they claimed that they knew Michael well, and that he was a nuisance caller known throughout the state by Samaritans volunteers and banned from other Samaritans hotlines. When Ellie Leite met with Sister Plante in her Department of Education office for the first time in August, 1993, she spoke at length about Michael and his tragic suicide attempt, and told Sister Plante that she would keep Michael in her prayers. Mrs. Leite would scarcely promise to pray for a non-existent person!

But when the Samaritans/FRNB seemingly wanted to discredit Sister Plante, suddenly it was convenient to claim that no "Michael Ross" ever existed. Suddenly he was a fictionalized creation of Sister Michaelinda Plante's dissociated imagination, and his poetry book a forgery. The "praise campaign" in his honor was some kind of sick, threatening hoax.

Then, when the Samaritans/FRNB apparently wanted to shortcircuit any public sympathy that might be developing for the twice-bereaved Rosses, they found it convenient to claim that "Michael Ross" had never committed suicide, but was in fact still alive and had recently called a hotline of another Samaritans chapter, where a "longtime volunteer" had recognized his voice. They stated this publicly in the Boston Globe, even though doing so was a flagrant violation of the Samaritans policy of absolute confidentiality for all callers.

So, which is it? Do the Samaritans/FRNB believe there was a "Michael Ross", abusive nuisance caller and bane of hotline volunteers? And if there was, did he die in August, 1994? Or do the Samaritans/FRNB really believe he is just a product of Sister Plante's imagination? Or are the Samaritans/FRNB convinced that Michael Ross is really alive, still crazy after all these years, and calling the Samaritans in Framingham?

Which is the most convenient for the Samaritans/FRNB to claim today?

The most succinct (not to mention disingenuous) statement of this contradiction was made by Pamela Pollock herself on "Chronicle", when she said (and I quote): "Personally, I don't believe there's any General...we don't believe anybody named Michael Ross committed suicide," and a few minutes later said, "the Rosses are at the center of all this." Wait a minute, Pamela! If the Rosses don't exist, then they can't be "at the center" of anything! If they're at the center of this whole thing, then they obviously must exist! So which is it?

By creating the illusion that all their concerns and issues centered on the mystery of whether or not there was a real Ross family, and/or who these people were, the Samaritans/FRNB managed to send otherwise intelligent reporters off on wild goose chases all over the state. These successfully misdirected "investigators" have endlessly harassed everyone connected with the case that they could corner, and published or broadcast mountains of bilge purporting to prove or disprove that the Rosses exist. Reporters have attempted to prove that because there was no call made to Winchester emergency services on the day Michael Ross allegedly made his suicide attempt, that no emergency could have existed. (People rush their loved ones to hospitals in their own cars every day, but the reporters disregard this fact.) They have attempted to prove that there is no death certificate for a young man matching Michael's description filed in North Carolina for the month Michael allegedly died. (I have not seen documentation that any New England reporter painstakingly searched every individual county records department in the entire state of North Carolina before concluding this.) They have attempted to prove that all possible retired Marine Corps Generals still living are accounted for. Paul Parker of the Providence Journal has even attempted to prove that the Rosses' second son, Luke, must be fictional, because, he has said in print and on "Chronicle", no one named Luke or Lucas died in Vietnam!

On that last point, I invite you, the reader of this website, to check out the website The Wall on the Web, which contains every single one of the 58,169 names of American military personnel who died in Vietnam and are listed on the memorial wall in Washington, D.C. Even a cursory search of this awe-inspiring website will turn up both Lukes and Lucases. However, all of these many issues have been thoroughly debunked by former Winchester Town Crier editor Ed Rice, who probably knows more about this whole story than any other reporter involved. He says he knows the Rosses and their true identity...and so does Sister Plante, and so do other people. But all these people have good reasons for respecting the confidentiality of the Ross family, and they obviously have a higher respect for confidentiality in general than do the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford.

Throughout the entire case and its aftermath, the Samaritans/FRNB have continued to deliberately feed false information to anyone they could persuade to believe them. Many of the "facts" about the Ross family on which journalists have based their Quest For The Rosses have been given to the media by the Samaritans/FRNB, who will only say they obtained the information from "unnamed sources". These journalists, such as Mary Richardson, then state that their information came from "surrogates for the Rosses", when that is only what they were told by the Samaritans/FRNB who gave the material to the journalists. Some of these materials include the alleged dates of Michael Ross' suicide attempt and death, childhood and adult photographs of Michael, the poetry book, and other information. During her deposition by the Samaritans/FRNB's attorney, Sister Plante was shown an unlabeled, unidentified photograph that was included in the poetry book and asked to confirm that it was Michael Ross. When she stated her belief that it was, the Samaritans/FRNB crowed loudly that the picture was in fact that of a rock star and this proved that Sister Plante didn't know a "Michael Ross." "Chronicle" and the Boston Globe both reported this--but conveniently neglected to mention that Sister Plante had not seen Michael since he was in elementary school. She had been told that he had long hair, and she had simply assumed, incorrectly, that the unlabeled photograph provided by Mrs. Ross was Michael. It had been included with the rest of the poetry book materials without any identification. As it turns out, the Samaritans/FRNB didn't know which rock star was in the picture, either. The picture is of Sebastian Bach, an idol of Michael's, but the Samaritans/FRNB told "Chronicle" that the photograph was Bon Jovi. Evidently there are quite a few people who have trouble distinguishing among rock stars.

Media coverage built on these false leads has further compounded its errors through selective omissions and snide insinuations. On "Chronicle", for example, Mary Richardson commented to her co-anchor that Sister Plante's two lawsuits for defamation of character had been dismissed, and said nothing about the circumstances. The viewer is left with the obvious implication that the suits were dismissed because they were frivolous or the evidence weighed against Sister Plante. You, the reader of this website, now know that Sister Plante's lawsuits were dismissed because of legal technicalities that exempted the defendants from giving any evidence at all. That's quite a different matter than the conclusion so casually suggested by Mary Richardson. Ed Rice has spent many hours and thousands of lines of newsprint tracking down and refuting these journalistic crows' nests, but the errors and disinformation keep on being repeated.

Darker and More Sinister Motives?

But there are more ways, and much more serious ones, to turn aside opposition than merely belching out impenetrable clouds of misimpressions and false leads.

Groups such as crime gangs, invading forces, or minority factions striving for political power have a number of well-documented methods of terrorizing and intimidating those who oppose them. One of these methods is to choose and destroy a sacrificial scapegoat as an example to everyone else of what could happen to them if they don't cooperate with the demands being made. The choice of this scapegoat victim, however, must be made very carefully. The scapegoat must have the following characteristics:

• He/she cannot be a nonentity picked at random, but must have considerable power and prestige from the point of view of his/her community;
• at the same time, he/she must be almost entirely powerless in an absolute sense, so that the intimidators can destroy him/her with virtually no fear of consequences;
• and the victim must have some characteristic that will limit widespread sympathy or outrage in the world at large.

From the point of view of the Samaritans/FRNB, Sister Plante was a perfect scapegoat. She held a high position professionally. She has a doctorate degree from a highly respected university. Her employment record of four decades is spotless, and she has earned the lasting respect and affection of her students and their families. Moreover, she is a member of a religious order and has vowed herself to a life of service to humanity. Of all the figures in this story that the Samaritans/FRNB could have attacked, Sister Plante would seem to be the most unimpeachable. But she was also the easiest mark. Under a vow of obedience, and completely answerable to the Diocesan hierarchy, she had no claim to due process. Under a vow of poverty, Sister Plante cannot own personal property or money (her salary is turned over to the order). In every important respect, despite her professional standing, Sister Plante was completely powerless. The final quality that made Sister Plante a perfect scapegoat was her status as a Sister of Mercy. It is a sad fact that a large majority of people in the United States have strong negative stereotypes and prejudices against nuns. The Samaritans/FRNB were cynically aware that any attempt Sister Plante made to resist being fired or contest their false accusations would be treated as a joke by great numbers of people.

By successfully bringing down Sister Plante, the Samaritans/FRNB were able to communicate an unequivocal message to everyone else involved in the conflict: "If we can destroy Sister Plante, we can destroy anybody, so back off." It's not necessary to infer this message from the situation--Samaritans/FRNB supporters stated it explicitly. As soon as Sister Plante was placed on involuntary leave, Susan Lyman began receiving threatening mail with statements like, "Sister Plante has now suffered the consequences", "remember what happened to Sister" and telling her that not only she personally, but the entire American Suicide Foundation would suffer similarly.

It's obvious that Sister Plante was targeted by the Samaritans/FRNB as an example. Not one of the individuals who participated in her downfall has ever expressed a single word of remorse, not even conditionally. None of these individuals, clearly, has lost a moment's sleep over Sister Plante's humiliation. This raises two questions for any objective observer:

What kind of people would be capable of doing something so cold and ruthless as to destroy another human being's life and career with deliberate lies?

What was at stake for these individuals that they would go to such an extreme to divert attention? What did they have to hide?

The Samaritans/FRNB gained another strong advantage when they destroyed Sister Plante. Extortionists, kidnappers and other intimidators often rely on the fact that good people will make almost any concession to protect and defend the innocent. This is the basis for such cowardly crimes as the taking of hostages, intimidating parents by threatening their children, and so on. As soon as Sister Plante was forced to resign, many of those who had been involved in the "Ross Saga" turned all their energies and resources toward helping Sister Plante. As the Samaritans/FRNB smirked with triumph, the Ross supporters were appalled to realize that they had condemned a woman who was blameless of any wrongdoing to professional and personal ruin by asking her to be a neutral mediator. (Only those who completely lack any vestige of integrity or decency, of course, fail to respect the sanctity of the role of neutral mediator.) Any further efforts that might have been made to resolve the Ross/Samaritans/FRNB impasse were now permanently diverted to restoring Sister Plante's reputation.

Scorched Earth Tactics

This story contains even more evidence, however, that the Samaritans/FRNB were not simply trying to bring a confusing episode to a close. The nature of their protestations, and the overkill of their response, strongly suggests that there was much more going on than they were willing to admit.

First, consider the Samaritans/FRNB's complaint that the "praise campaign" was somehow sinister or threatening. No one who has reported on this whole case has ever commented on the absolute illogic of the Samaritans/FRNB's attitude, or even asked them to explain exactly what underhanded motives they believed might be behind the campaign. A "fraudulent praise campaign"? Fraudulent, in what way, and to what end? It's almost an oxymoron. Why on earth would anybody go to all the time and trouble to manufacture a "fraudulent" praise campaign? A fraudulent smear campaign, yes--that would be all too believable. But a fraudulent praise campaign? Including thousands of dollars of cash contributions? If the Samaritans/FRNB's name was being used in a fundraising scam, as the Samaritans/FRNB claimed on "Chronicle" that they suspected, why on earth would con artists running such a scam deliberately attract the attention of legislators, Cardinal Law, President Clinton and the Pope by commissioning commendations from them? Con-artists, like stage magicians, do everything possible to distract attention until they can get away with the loot.

I'd like to ask you, the reader of this website, to apply your imagination, intelligence, and common sense for a moment. Imagine that you are the Director of a non-profit human services agency that is almost entirely dependent upon donations for its budget. Your hotline staff is all-volunteer, and in order to attract volunteers, you need good publicity, recognition by the leaders of your society, and a good reputation. It would be self-destructive to the point of insanity for you to return donations to private citizens, and denounce a good public relations campaign...unless. What might be the circumstances in which a non-profit agency would violently rebuff a "praise campaign" with all the attention that it might attract? What might you fear would come out if all sorts of legislators suddenly were made much more aware of your agency than they previously had been? What might you be worried about if a sudden large influx of donations caused your account books to be worth examining? What possible scenarios do your own common sense and experience suggest to you?

Here is another situation for you, the reader of this website, to consider. Imagine that you are the chief executive officer of a large non-profit institution, such as the Fall River Diocese. You are sitting in your office one July day, and you hear a low rumbling noise out in the hallway. Stampeding into your office comes a herd of high-powered "representatives" for a small, local human services agency: the Executive Director, the Assistant Director, the current President of the Board, the past President of the Board, three attorneys, an official from the county Sheriff's office and a Congressional aide! You have never seen or heard from any of these people before, so it's not as though they'd contacted you in lesser numbers and received an unsatisfactory response. All of them, it turns out, are here to complain to you about one single person--an individual who is not even under your direct authority. What has this person done? With all these big guns flattening the nap of your office carpet, you logically expect nothing less than some heinous crime: multiple child molestation, felony murder, or at least, larceny in excess of the national debt. You might also logically expect some evidence to be presented in proof of this individual's wrong-doing.

Instead, you hear only an eight hundred decibel whine that this single individual is "harassing" all of these powerful people, and that she supposedly wrote a book of poems that they find offensive. Not a single shred of hard evidence in support of the complaints is offered.

If you are a reasonable person, you might wonder why this human services agency is so threatened, and rendered so desperate, by the alleged actions of a single neutral mediator, that they would perform the equivalent of killing a mosquito with a howitzer. What is at stake for them that they would go to such an extreme effort to intimidate someone of your standing? By bringing three lawyers with them and stating that they will file a lawsuit against you, they're making it clear that they're fighting a life and death battle. But they never make it clear why. What do they have to hide that they fear this individual and her mediation, even inadvertently, might expose?

What circumstances do your common sense and experience suggest the agency might be hiding?

Frightened Innocents or Guilty Consciences?

When Sister Plante was locked out of her office on August 15, 1994, she was told by her superiors that the Samaritans/FRNB had complained that she was keeping a file on them and investigating their agency's business. While this was not the case, suppose it had been true? What agency that was being operated in an ethical, responsible manner would have anything worth investigating or keeping a file about? Why should the Samaritans/FRNB have worried, or cared, if someone was investigating them? Non-profit corporations are public entities, anyway: their bylaws, business and financial books are a matter of public record. An agency that goes berserk at the thought that someone is examining its business is not deserving of the public trust. What were the Samaritans/FRNB hiding?

Throughout the past five years, the Samaritans/FRNB have worked very hard (especially when they could get on television) to present themselves as a frightened, confused, victimized group of people. But if the Samaritans/FRNB really thought they were being used for some kind of hoax or fund-raising scam, why did they never report their suspicions to the police? To the FBI? To the Division of Public Charities? To the Office of the District Attorney? Why didn't the Samaritans/FRNB launch an investigation of the praise campaign? At no time did the Samaritans/FRNB ever report the praise campaign to any authority or agency for possibly swindling donors or engaging in some kind of money-laundering scheme. If that's really what the Samaritans/FRNB suspected, they had a moral obligation to the supposed victims, and to other Samaritans chapters and other charities who might be used in such a way, to report the supposed hoax to every relevant authority. Furthermore, if they believed they were innocent victims or shills in a shady scheme, why weren't they eager to testify in court about their concerns?

The Samaritans/FRNB based much of their suspicion of the praise campaign on their doubts about the authenticity of the letters of commendation. They expressed these doubts to Sister Plante, the praise campaign organizers, the newspapers, and "Chronicle". But at no time did anyone from the Samaritans/FRNB ever express their doubts to the most logical parties: the alleged writers of the letters! If you, the reader of this website, received a personal letter purporting to be from a legislator, and you doubted it was authentic, what would you do? You would pick up the phone and call the legislator's office to find out if he had sent you any such letter. But the Samaritans/FRNB instead went only to the very people who they suspected of forging the letters in the first place. No legislator or politician ever heard directly from the Samaritans/FRNB asking to verify that the commendation was authentic. Why not?

There's no doubt that the Samaritans/FRNB acted like people who felt threatened. But they didn't act frightened. They acted, from the first moment, and in every possible way, like people who are guilty.

The Samaritans/FRNB are undeniably guilty of confiscating checks and retaining them uncashed, refusing to return the checks despite repeated requests to do so. Ellie Leite stated publicly that she was keeping the checks "under my desk blotter" and during the June 15, 1994 confrontation, ordered Susan Lyman not to ask her about these checks or any other missing funds donated to the organization and unaccounted for. The Samaritans/FRNB claimed that they did not want to return the checks to Mrs. Ross because they did not believe she existed. But if the Samaritans/FRNB genuinely believed, as they claimed, that the checks represented money fraudulently obtained or part of a scam, then they had absolutely no right to keep it. The checks should have been turned over to the office of the District Attorney, the Fall River police, or some other investigative authority, to be held until their origin could be cleared. It was neither legal nor ethical for the Samaritans/FRNB to hold the checks. Again, apply your own common sense to the issue. If you, the reader of this website, discover a bag of cash on the street, should you keep it? As we all are taught in grade school, both legally and ethically, you are required to turn questionable money in to the authorities. If the money is evidence in a crime, and you withhold it, you could be held liable for complicity in that crime. The Samaritans/FRNB were never held accountable by anyone for their refusal to turn over this important evidence of an alleged crime to the appropriate authorities. Just as the Samaritans/FRNB accused Sister Plante and the praise campaign organizers of "fraud" but never officially reported those allegations to the authorities, the Samaritans/FRNB claimed that Mrs. Ross' checks were possible evidence of "fraud" and "criminal activity" and yet hid them under Mrs. Leite's office blotter!

These are not the only unanswered questions about Sister Plante and the Ross Saga, by far. Why did an attorney of Robert George's experience, reputation and stature perform such an abysmally incompetent and sloppy job representing Sister Plante that he was publicly criticized by Judge Volterra and Attorney James Franchek, and is now liable in a suit for legal malpractice? Why did the Samaritans/FRNB accept a plaque from the Rosses in early 1992 and then rebuff the praise campaign only a year later? Why did Congressman Blute fail to respond to any of the letters sent to him by Sister Plante, or to return telephone calls made to him by Ed Rice?

Keeping the Core Issue at the Center

These mysteries may never be solved. But one fact is clear: Sister Plante has unjustly borne all of the ugly consequences of the Ross/Samaritans/FRNB dispute. She deserves, at the least, a full apology from her former superiors in the Fall River Diocese, and an apology and unqualified acknowledgement from the Samaritans/FRNB that she was used by them as a scapegoat in their effort to stop the Rosses from pressuring them to accept the praise campaign. Sister Plante could not keep a large financial settlement due to her vow of poverty, and getting such a settlement is not her goal. She wishes only to restore her reputation and the professional standing she earned in her four decades of dedicated work as an educator. She wishes to see that the real story is publicized, instead of all the nonsense, paranoia and deliberate falsehood that has been broadcast for the past five years. If you agree that Sister Plante fell afoul of a convoluted and shady situation and was punished for the sins of others, then she needs your help. The intimidators are right about one thing: if it could happen to Sister Plante, it could happen to you. Tactics such as these must not be allowed to succeed in a free and democratic society. We need to see the truth told at last.