MEDIA COVERAGE

Sadly, there is still no justice for Sister Plante

by Ed Rice

The Winchester Star
Thursday, November 20, 1997

Again, sadly, poor Sister Michaelinda has been denied her day in court, denied the opportunity to regain her personal and professional reputation. I hope her new attorneys will not be deterred and will try and try again. Perhaps, somewhere down the line, an appellate court will demonstrate that justice isn't a completely foreign concept in Massachusetts.

Further, if God were indeed in his heaven, sister's "high profile" former lawyer Robert George would be required to return, back to the cause, every penny of his obnoxiously high retainer, paid by the nun's many, many supporters throughout this region.

George's inattentive, ineffectual and ultimately inept performance allowed the case's other attorney, James Francek, to use every sleazy technicality to keep a couple of very damaging-to-his-case depositions off the record, to keep several key individuals from being required to give depositions (notably, Bishop Sean O'Malley and the nun's two immediate supervisors) and, ultimately, to keep the case out of court. As a result, these ruses offered the opportunity for several judges to make very puzzling decisions that deny the nun any semblance of justice.

This is where the story is today. And this is where, I believe, responsible journalists should be working to offer the public new information, and, on the editorial page, to keep the spotlight hot and focused on the justice system, encouraging it to do the right thing.

Yet, sickeningly, if the nun's fortunes continue to receive sham treatment from the justice system, they also have recently been dealt demeaning insult by ugly television sensationalism and pathetically uninformed print journalism.

The most recent program aired by ABC's "Chronicle" on the Sister Michaelinda case was riddled with misconceptions and misleading television-style theatrics. As a dedicated journalist I'm now sorry I ever allowed myself to be interviewed by that show's host, Mary Richardson. Clearly, others feel the same way; for the only new element and the only new individual interviewed in Richardson's second program was retired Marine General Bernard Trainor, who admitted to me in a phone conversation he knows nothing about this story and doesn't want to know anything. All the other individuals seen in this second installment were merely taped interview segments repeated from her first program many months ago.

And columnist Jim Sauer's recent diatribes in the Winchester Star, for all their storm-the-ramparts-and-take-no-prisoners bluster, march in silly circles, finding fraud and conspiracy in, of all things, a long-retired military man wearing a beret with his civilian attire. Marines, snaps Sauer with conviction that should resolve the entire matter right then and there, are not allowed to wear berets in or out of uniform.

Sauer parrots unsubstantiated charges by Richardson and Fall River reporter Paul Parker and even hails clueless Gen. Trainor's "unimpeachable" credibility, while ignoring several questionable, if not outright inane remarks Trainor made on television that no one was allowed to challenge or rebut.

Even worse, Sauer, this newest Johnny-come-lately, tiresomely cites the fallacy-ridden allegations of Paul Parker (conspicuously unnamed in Sauer's column), including Parker's completely ridiculous assertions about unreported suicide attempts and the supposed absence of the name "Luke" from the names of nearly 58,000 Vietnam dead--all of which I refuted point-by-point years ago in Winchester Town Crier articles.

Sauer even features chronic liar Sergeant David Andrews (who can't seem to ever make up his mind whether he does or does not know a General Ross) of the National Guard in the intriguing role of "credible" witness concerning someone else's integrity.

It would really help matters if Sauer would stop bothering Marine sources, such as the Marine Corps Reserve Officer Association, looking for a "General Ross" or a former general from Winchester, so that he can then rail to the gods that no such animal exists. Sauer, Richardson, Trainor and a handful of other inept "investigative" types seem to be the only people who don't understand the following concept: Following General Ross's Marine career, he entered the service of the Central Intelligence Agency. "Ross" is the name he uses in "public" situations where he does not want to attract attention to his real name and real identity, the identity he was always known by in the military and has always been known by in Winchester. His military records were sealed to protect his C.I.A. identity, his private identity. What's so hard to understand about this?

Investigate through military channels, asking questions about a General Ross or a former Marine general living in Winchester, and you will most definitely come up empty-handed. Try the gentleman's service number, as Edward Florino, director of veterans services in Medford, had done and verification awaits.

Concerning the TV program, I suppose I should be flattered: Mary Richardson has appropriated for herself one of my key assessments as well as my actual wording--the idea concerning the number of "shadowy" figures in this sordid tale. Only, Mary, I said there were "shadowy characters" on both sides of the case, not just the Ross camp side.

And, once more in this television installment, balance was noticeably absent. Again, she used what little she took from me in a nearly one-hour interview for provocative, little sound bites. Most were completely out of context. The worst one came when she focused on my passion in relating the concept that "the military takes care of its own." She chopped me off, without explaining that I was discussing the use of military transportation to fly Michael Ross, the victim of a suicide, from Massachusetts to a North Carolina hospital (a civilian hospital, not a military hospital as Richardson mistakenly reported).

She turned to Gen. Trainor, following use of my remark, and asked him if the military would "change records" to protect individuals. I NEVER, EVER said anything of the sort, but because of Richardson's theatrical arranging of remarks that is the impression she is leaving with her viewers. Trainor said the military would never alter records; that, of course, would be illegal.

Richardson chose to discredit me and my work on this story over more than two years, without ever giving me a chance to respond.

She chose to accept everything Gen. Trainor had to say, including the clearly questionable statement that he "knows all 68 Marine generals" dating from the end of World War II to the present time. Any thinking journalist would be skeptical and at the very least, question further how he could possibly take credit for "knowing" and being able to identify so many individuals, so intimately, over so long a period of time.

I'm surprised Richardson's station, or any producer overseeing her report, would allow her to go back on the air with so little new information. Essentially, three-quarters or more of her report was a review of her earlier story, verbatim. She gave no time to the nun or any of her supporters to respond to this new report. Information I have indicates she was rejected for follow-up interviews, by the nun, by Ed Florino and others, based on how bothered they all were by her first report.

Yes, I do know the general's real name.

First, I believe if our government believes, for national security reasons, he and his family are entitled to such protection, it would be morally wrong and highly unpatriotic to reveal it. Further, I know making such a revelation would create a press frenzy where all the television and newspaper people could race to his Winchester address and harangue a man, who has endured enough tragedy, for no particularly useful purpose.

As for the second reason I'm protecting General Ross' true identity: I promised I [would], so long as my evidence and the sources I trusted supported his claims and I believed his story.

I made this promise, in a column I wrote for the Winchester Town Crier... even before I actually learned the name. I also told would-be sources I would not reveal the real name, once I learned it, to protect the man in question and that I would not ever reveal the identities of those who might want to remain anonymous for obvious reasons in providing me with the confirmation about him I needed. Understanding that top-ranking military officials could very likely have their careers destroyed by being sucked into a very public scandal or being required to testify on confidential matters in a court of law, I assured two military sources on this case I would never reveal their names in exchange for this vital confirmation. In very limited cases, like this one, I believe in a journalist's right to protect sources in exchange for information vital to the public's "right to know" and, additionally in this instance, to insure to the journalist that his or her information is accurate. And I'd willingly stand in contempt of any court in the country on this principle.

Right now, Mr. Sauer, the "naivete" you callously charge me with possessing is based on my unwillingness to deceive my confidential sources and provide you with concrete names and phone numbers. Yet, for all your saber rattling, you have only repeated Richardson's questionable ally, Gen. Trainor, and the completely unreliable Sgt. Andrews, as military sources challenging this story. It should be very understandable why my sources won't "go on the record" with me, but you have no such excuse. Give me and your readers, Mr. Sauer, proof positive that no such man exists and use sources who know something about not only the military but about the secret government organization, the CIA. Absurd declarations about beret-wearing are childish and completely unconvincing.

Only if I were suddenly to have it undeniably proven to me, that Gen. Ross and several key sources I have trusted have deceived me, would I believe it necessary, immediately, to reveal any and all information I have relating to his identity. And I certainly would not start with the media but with far more appropriate authorities.

In spite of Richardson's sorrowful boasting on Channel 5 television that she has "cracked this case," all her new report has done is raise even more tantalizing questions.

Now, following her line of reasoning, you have to find out why a man is parading around pretending to be a former Marine general for 15 to 20 years in Winchester (Remember: Sister Michaelinda has stated repeatedly she has known this family, with this "Ross" identity, since she was head administrator at St. Mary's School from 1974-1984). You want to know what possible reason he and his wife could have to create such a fuss, very possibly exposing their "fraud," over such a convoluted mess as this situation. They have absolutely nothing to gain in money, power or prestige, by merely trying to promote the good the Samaritans do as an organization. And they have been paying a fortune, in legal fees, in support of the fight to help Sister Michaelinda clear her name.

If Mary Richardson is right, all she has done is tease her viewers. She should be waiting until she has definitive proof General Ross is a fraud, plus some kind of reasonable motive to explain all the rest of the story.

One arrogant albeit much decorated, retired Marine general, who has no clue about any of the complicated issues involved, is hardly "an unimpeachable" source for resolving this whole story. Retired Gen. Trainor has already upset several of his acquaintances (who, according to my sources, know Gen. Ross by his real identity) by badgering them for information and reportedly "threatening" them. Worst of all, he acknowledged to me that he was given the opportunity, by Mr. Florino, to check out Gen. Ross' service number through proper channels, and rejected it. Trainor said he wasn't interested in doing any research, that only a call from General Ross or a Marine general familiar with him would suffice.

If you accept my working hypothesis--that an anonymous Winchester family isn't the real concern here and that the true scandal originates in Fall River--there are many, many questions that scream out for answers.

• You want to find out why the struggling Samaritan chapter of Fall River rejected $27,000 in donations and verified letters and plaques of praise because of an "anonymous" benefactor, when all Samaritan literature, because of the nature of the organization's sensitive work, guarantees anonymity for all clients and contacts.
  
• You want to know why the nun, a respected member of the Fall River community with more than 40 years of exemplary service, was so hostilely received by their organization and why the Samaritans as an organization went to Bishop O'Malley to so vehemently register their concern.
  
• You want to know why Bishop O'Malley forced the nun to resign without so much as an investigation and why he, and the nun's two immediate supervisors, Father Beaulieu and Sister LaLiberte, aren't required to give depositions to properly determine whether the case has any merit in a court of law.
  
• You want to know why former U.S. House of Representatives member Peter Blute turned a confidential letter to him from the nun, seeking his help in the matter, over to the very group, the Samaritans, she sought that help concerning.
  
• You want to know why Blute's aide, Lou Cabral, actually joined the Samaritans in going to the Bishop and making this damaging complaint against the nun.
  
• You want to know what Samaritan attorney Francek's girlfriend is doing working for a Samaritan chapter in the greater Boston area. And it's the very chapter that just happened to be cited in a Boston Globe story claiming the deceased Michael Ross' voice was suddenly back on the hotline again, long past his reported death.

Something other than an invisible general smells here, but Mary Richardson and Jim Sauer, clearly, are not interested.

Richardson seems to me, now, to be nothing more than the television "personality" type writer Don Henley railed about in his rock song, "Dirty Laundry"; yes, she is kindred spirit to the "bubble-headed bleached blonde / comes on at 5 / she can tell you about the plane crash / with a gleam in her eye." She has a lot of nerve calling herself a journalist and has only caused a lot of harm with her despicable sensationalism and pathetic attempts at being an investigative journalist.

And, even worse than inflaming many of her potential sources in Winchester, Richardson has harassed innocent people, especially poor Ed O'Connell of Winchester, former VFW commander and a man who lives with the tragedy of having lost a son, who she has thoughtlessly and absurdly pestered in the belief he might be the general.

For shame, Mary Richardson and Jim Sauer, you both think the whole scandal is rooted in Winchester. Here's a hint; locate Fall River on a map, go there and interview some of the other "shadowy figures" I've already written about. Not only will you both be adding vitally needed balance to your reports, you both might also discover how little you really know about this tragic, convoluted mess that defies these sophomoric attempts to resolve in a neat, little TV drama-style package.

© copyright 1997 Ed Rice. Reprinted by written permission of the author.

| BACK | GO TO TOP | NEXT PART |