Skip to content

Integrity a two-way street

Dec 19, 2010, 8:45 PM EDT

Getty Images - Jonathan Daniel Getty Images

There is nothing straightforward about the circumstances surrounding the death of St. Mary’s freshman Lizzy Seeberg, who committed suicide nine days after accusing an Irish football player of sexual assault. That accusation was first reported by the Chicago Tribune, who has been the paper of record on this story since initially reporting it for its Sunday edition on November 21st, a day after the Irish defeated Army in Yankee Stadium 28-3.

Again, there’s little that seems straightforward about this story. That Notre Dame and its independent police force have shared little information with the Seeberg family (or the Tribune) hasn’t helped the University’s case in the court of public opinion. That the 19-year-old Seeberg had long suffered serious bouts of depression, taken antidepressants, and battled thoughts of suicide before her accusations don’t make things easier for the family or the prosecution. And while St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak declined to file any charges after spending a month reviewing a “voluminous report” turned over by Notre Dame to the county prosecutors, the story has already been framed, not just by the Tribune’s one-sided reporting, but some horrific editorializing, turning a tragic story with no winners into a melodrama that positioned the Tribune to play the role of scrappy underdog against the monolithic and conspiratorial Notre Dame. It might be an excellent angle to sell papers, but it’s a great disservice to all parties involved.

That the Tribune’s reporting on the incident has been one-sided shouldn’t be all that surprising — only one-side of the story is talking about the incident. But the fact that the Tribune has published three different opinion pieces on the tragedy, all sharing the same viewpoint, is a major cause for concern.

In between columns name-checking guys like Rahm Emmanuel and Geraldo Rivera, and tongue-and-cheek exposes on revolving-door “ride poachers,” Tribune columnist John Kass took Notre Dame to task for failing to live up to its name when dealing with the Declan Sullivan and Seeberg tragedies.

Kass points out that the Virgin Mary, who Notre Dame was named after, “wasn’t much for spin. She didn’t lawyer up. She didn’t hide behind bureaucratic walls.” Kass failed to mention that the Virgin Mary didn’t completely avoid the other side of the story either.

While Kass chooses to label Notre Dame’s responses “public relations spin and bureaucratic shielding of liability,” he conveniently leaves out Father John Jenkins’ statement of responsibility for the death of Sullivan. He also conveniently ignores the multiple releases from the University explaining how and why they’ve handled the Seeberg investigation the way they have, and all but calling the initial Tribune report false and misleading.

While schlocky writing isn’t necessarily mediocre journalism, another Tribune columnist, David Haugh, took his second swipe today at the University over the Seeberg tragedy. While his first column was filled with righteous indignation that only subtly abused the truth, his most recent work raised the bar by misappropriating a Brian Kelly quote to help fit his column better.

In a column entitled “Integrity is wrong word in school’s handling of Seeberg case,” Haugh opened his column with this (bold lettering added by me for emphasis):

Curious to see in person how the most visible leader at Notre Dame defended the most famous college football program in America from charges of hypocrisy — and worse — I came Friday to hear coach Brian Kelly.

And was astonished by what I heard.

I shouldn’t have been.

Kelly used the word “integrity” four times in 30 seconds while answering a question about support for a player accused of sexually attacking a St. Mary’s College student who killed herself 10 days later.

If you don’t have integrity, what else do you have?” Kelly began. “I’ve got a family to raise. I’ve got kids. I have a football family here. If there’s no integrity in what you do … I’d have been in a different business a long time ago.

“Integrity is probably, for me, the only thing that keeps me going in this business. Sometimes misinformation and not having the right facts drives you crazy. So you have to have something that you hang your hat on. It’s always, for me, been doing the right thing. And integrity.”

As the Notre Dame coach invoked all that was wholesome and good about the guys in gold helmets, the cyber hunt to identify the player and poke into his past continued. The Tribune is not naming the player because he was not charged with a crime.

In what has become a habitual exercise in framing the narrative, Haugh turned Kelly’s comments about integrity into something that would help his column, not into the response of the question he actually asked.

Here’s the question that Kelly was actually asked:

“Your program obviously is scrutinized, and my newspaper has been critical of the way things have been handled, other people may be as well, do you feel just as strongly now than you did a month ago in terms of defending the type of player that you recruit, and the type of process for situations like this?”

And here’s the response Kelly gave:

“If you don’t have integrity, what else do you have? I’ve got a family to raise, I’ve got kids, I have a football family here. If there’s no integrity in what you do, then I’d have been in a different business a long time ago. So, integrity is probably for me the only thing that keeps me going in this business. Because sometimes misinformation, and not having the right facts drives you crazy. You have to have something to hang your hat on. And it’s always for me been doing the right thing and integrity.”

Kelly’s answer reads quite differently when you consider it a response to what Haugh actually asked him, not as an act of support for the accused player. Maybe the most disappointing part of Haugh’s column wasn’t what he wrote, but what he didn’t, leaving out Kelly’s response to his final question, when the reporter asked the head coach if he felt “vindicated” that the prosecutor decided not to file charges.

“Boy, I don’t think I’ve ever felt a vindication in such a very unfortunate time,” Kelly said. “A young girl lost her life. I can’t imagine how tough that is on the parents. I don’t think there were ever those feelings as much as completing the process, and I’m committed to the way the University handles the process. They’re thorough and we’re all part of that process.”

Kelly’s comments are probably the best encapsulation of what’s actually transpired in the days since Lizzy Seeberg took her own life. There are no winners here. Not the Seeberg family, who grieve the loss of a daughter and struggle to find answers in a process that’s guarded by laws that protect both sides of a sexual accusation. Not Notre Dame, who deals with their second high-profile tragedy of the football season. And not the Chicago Tribune, who had to sacrifice their journalistic ethics to get the most out of a story, where only one-side openly cooperated.

Two days after the Tribune broke their initial story, Janet M. Botz, Vice President in the Office of Public Affairs and Communications had this to say in a statement released to all faculty, staff, and students at the University.

“It is and always will be a central tenet of Notre Dame’s mission to learn the truth and to act in accordance with it. As you read stories about any matter that involves our careful and thorough process, I urge you not to arrive at any conclusions until all the facts are known. Only through a serious, informed and fair process can justice be served. Such a process will always be our focus.”

That process means staying quiet while the Tribune continues to throw rocks at the Golden Dome, even if it means taking the bumps and bruises associated.

Funny, that sounds an awful lot like integrity.

  1. brendanunderscoreg - Dec 19, 2010 at 9:33 PM

    keith, you continue to show restraint in your writing. i don’t think any is deserved on this occasion.

    excellent article.

  2. tlndma - Dec 19, 2010 at 10:16 PM

    Keith right on. As ND continues to take it on the chin for doing nothing wrong, it refuses to comment on the obvious. Integrity, yes integrity in spades.

  3. bradwins - Dec 19, 2010 at 11:10 PM

    GREAT job, Keith.

  4. mpclinton22 - Dec 20, 2010 at 12:57 AM

    Thank you so much for writing this. It kills me when I read the tribunes stories, attempting to tarnish the reputation of the University that I love so much with pathetically false drivel as they have. As if the University hasn’t suffered enough over the past few months, all the Tribune is doing is adding insult to injury. I love reading your articles as they are always fair and unbiased; telling it how it is. Thank you again, both for setting people straight and for restoring my faith in journalism.

  5. mburke127 - Dec 20, 2010 at 3:29 AM

    One-sided reporting, yikes! Definitely know we can avoid that from the network handling Notre Dame’s sports contracts.

    After all, who needs to consider facts like NDSP not interviewing the player until long after the accusations had been made and after Lizzy Seeberg had already killed herself. Niether is it worth mentioning that the player had been suspended in high school for throwing a desk at a teacher who confiscated his cell phone and expelled in middle school for bullying, yet was still seen as a good candidate for Notre Dame.

    If the reporting has been one-sided it’s because there is only one side worth reporting. And before I am accused of being a troll, let me say that as a Notre Dame student, I can see first hand that the university has done nothing right in handling these cases. They didn’t even acknowledge the accusations Lizzy made at first, which is deliberately neglecting a real danger to the entire college community. Janet Botz’s emails were a joke. And as someone who knew Declan Sullivan, Jenkins’ statement offered neither comfort nor sincerity as everyone involved had already claimed they believed they did nothing wrong. How is Fr. Jenkins remotely involved with football practice protocol anyway?

    The bottom line is that, regardless of the quality of the Tribune’s reporting, Notre Dame and integrity are no longer synonymous in my mind, and I can’t wait to leave in May.

    • billlocker - Dec 20, 2010 at 8:16 AM

      Wow! One has only to review recent history and record the draconian reactions that ND has had toward numerous athletes for minor infractions to doubt that they would they sweep this event under the carpet. I remain amazed that people are so willing to think that disciplining someone for actions that have not been proven (and which were reviewed by the local authorities who declined to prosecute) is an appropriate response. Yet, the same people will cite “facts” from the accused’s past with no more verification than another article from the same paper conducting the witch hunt. Heaven help us if this is is typical of the level of informed thought that the Unviversity is producing in its students.

    • bradwins - Dec 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM

      I’m particularly fond of the argument that “NDSP [did not interview] the player until long after . . . Lizzy Seeberg had already killed herself.” Because they had a premonition that her suicide was imminent and they were just waiting for it before they interviewed the player? I’m not sure what the implication is here, but I am sure it makes no sense.

      I could present a similarly damning retort to most of the drivel you posited here, mburke127, but I have neither the time nor the motivation. Your comments reveal that you have some ax to grind and are not interested in a fair or reasoned analysis. So be it. I’m just grateful that you represent but a small, albeit vocal, minority in the Notre Dame fraternity.

    • andyt2008 - Dec 20, 2010 at 10:54 AM

      Dont let the door hit you i the ass on the way out

    • thepiper3 - Dec 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM

      I’m quite confused by your comments. If you are in fact a Notre Dame student, and you claim that Notre Dame does not possess a level of integrity to meet your standards, then why are you proceeding to get a degree from the institution in May?

      It is your right to view ND as being ethically challenged. But then why not withdraw from the university and transfer to another school that has your level of intergrity, where you can finish your degree?

      “As a Notre Dame student I can see first hand that the university has done nothing right in handling these cases”. I believe you’re overstating your importance, and making a jump to assumptions…which is exactly what Haugh did. I’m sure the University is not sharing all the information it has with each of its 8,000+ students.

    • whisk3yjack - Dec 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM

      You’d fit right in at Berkley. As andyt2008 said, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      • Keith Arnold - Dec 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM

        Let’s keep this civil. Deleted a few comments for obvious reasons. This site is better than personal attacks.

      • mburke2485 - Dec 20, 2010 at 4:15 PM

        Thanks Keith, much appreciated.

    • socalgold - Dec 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM

      Melinda, is that you? Cmon, you might as well just pimp your sight for all to see. Talking about integrity with a wannabe blogger like yourself is not even a possibility. All you are doing in the end pushing this line of thought is hurting the girl’s family. Too many questions. Sad.

    • papadec - Dec 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM

      If you are really that upset – why wait until May? Don’t go back after Christmas break. Or, would that require too much integrity on your part?

    • dancer1120 - Dec 23, 2010 at 6:41 PM

      Integrity and perfection are not synonymous. In a situation like the one the Notre Dame football program and administration has found itself this past semester, not a course of action exists which will please everyone. While no, I do not believe the Lizzy Seeberg case was handled as it could have been, I remember that hindsight is 20/20. We can bash Notre Dame for all the things it has done wrong in the investigation and suggest better ways to have handled it, but what’s done is done. Protection of the personal privacy of a student alleged to have committed a crime, whether he is a football player with a past of aggression or not, is just as important as completing an investigation properly. On the other side of the coin, Lizzy Seeberg’s family deserves to know exactly what happened to their daughter and were let down by the University’s process of investigation. Like Keith said, there are no winners here, but Notre Dame has tried to act with integrity in the face of everything that has been going on, and the Seeberg family has acted with incredible strength and integrity in the face of the terrible tragedy they have experienced. Again, integrity is not synonymous with perfection. Being a Notre Dame student, I have witnessed the progression of events this semester with a front row seat in South Bend, further ingraining my opinion that there is no way to please everyone.

      Notre Dame is NOT perfect. I don’t expect it to be, as burke127 seems to expect. What I expect is that Notre Dame take responsibility for its actions and recognize its shortcomings. That, to me, is integrity, and I will never back down in my assertion that Notre Dame possesses integrity. And what I have to say to burke127 is that it seems as if you have some pent up dislike towards Notre Dame and if you can’t wait to leave in May, then maybe this university was not a fit for you. I know everyone does not love ND but if you are going to entrust your undergraduate education to a university you are doing yourself a disservice if you do not respect it and enjoy your time there. I feel bad for you burke, and I hope you did not stay here just to get that Notre Dame stamp on your diploma. I wish you luck in the future, and hope that you don’t regret your decision to graduate from a university that you will not be able to proudly name as your alma mater.

      • scott153 - Dec 27, 2010 at 5:31 AM

        I’m happy to have you as a classmate. Thank you for maintaining reason (and integrity) in your understanding/perspective of this series of unfortunate events surrounding ND through this past semester. Though I can see how you or I could be biased towards ND, I like to think of us as being more levelheaded than 90% of the population. @Burke123, if you truly are a Notre Dame student, I am sorry you feel that way.

        Go Irish.

  6. mikecoffeyndn - Dec 20, 2010 at 7:12 AM

    Keith, outstanding work as usual. Haugh’s misrepresentation of his question and its answer are par for the course for him, so it probably should be expected. And assuming the prior commenter is an actual student, if he’s so worried about ND’s integrity, he has the opportunity right now between semesters to transfer and get his degree from an institution more suitable to his beliefs. But of course he won’t, because he wants that ND on his diploma. Talk about integrity.

  7. thepiper3 - Dec 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM

    David Haugh has never had a problem with being criticized for a lack of journalistic integrity. He realized long ago that factual accuracies and investigative reporting don’t sell papers. In today’s world, a spectacle draws more eyeballs than an intelligent detailed discussion. Its sad, but its true. So his actions are unsurprising. What is surprising is that other news outlets across the country are willing to carry his work (and others from the Trib).

    Having followed the Duke lacrosse case very very closely, I was well ahead of the major news networks on the case, including MSNBC/CourtTV/FoxNews/HeadlineNews. What was mindboggling was the amount of completely inaccurate information that was being trumpeted by mainstream media as factually correct.

    While there were facts in that case that were somewhat disturbing (a team hiring strippers….yelling racial slurs at them as they departed the residence), what was more disturbing was to see accusations of gang rape applied to men completely innocent of that crime. In fact the crime didn’t happen.

    The tragedy of Lizzy Seeberg’s death can’t be ignored, but that does not mean a case history isn’t relevant. There are many similarities here to the way the media treated the Duke case, albeit on a smaller scale:

    There are undisputed facts that are slightly distressing (a friend sending a text message to Ms Seeberg telling her not “to mess with ND football”, the accused player’s alleged discipline problem in HS). But those facts do not eliminate some of the other facts that are not mentioned by the Chicago Trib. Initially this was reported as a “rape”, when in fact it was a “groping” (however you want to define that). In addition, Ms Seeberg had had some emotional/depression problems and was settling into a new school. These problems may have snowballed. Lastly, the lesson from the Duke lacrosse case that was most notable….You cannot solve a he-said/she-said case of alleged sexual assault or battery on day 1. Instead waiting for scientific lab results (which Ms Seeberg subjected her self to) before moving forward with any interviews/questioning is preferred.

    Lastly, it is near impossible to see how the police could have assumed that Ms Seeberg would commit suicide in the days after this case, but before they conducted an interview of the other party. And ignoring that fact is naive at best.

  8. skim18 - Dec 20, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    As a student attending the University of Notre Dame, it is disappointing that Notre Dame has not been transparent on the issue. Although I want to believe that it is not the case, the University may be trying to hide additional information. It really is disheartening…

    I don’t find the report by the tribune “one sided” at all. Notre Dame has failed repeatedly to explain anything about the incident or the steps the University took to investigate the incident. The information that the public has are the personal accounts of the Seebergs, who are justifiably not happy with the whole process. The only reports I have received as a student have been “clarifying” emails about the tribune stories, as if the University would not have sent them had their been no articles written about the story.

    I love to root for my University because I am forever indebted to it and it makes up a large part of my identity as a student. Yet, I cannot defend this situation given its gravity and its lack of transparency.

    • bradwins - Dec 20, 2010 at 1:16 PM

      I’m not sure I understand your sense of entitlement (or the Tribune’s) regarding information from the University detailing its investigation. The only honorable thing for the University to do is to remain silent. Maybe it has information that would exonerate its own actions and make the girl look bad. People seem to want a public admonishment of the accused boy, and anything short of that will be insufficient. The possibility that the boy may not have done anything warranting action by the authorities or the University seems to have been dismissed before it was even considered.

      Regardless, I am not sure why so many people feel an explanation is owed to them. Maybe the University should issue an apology for not satisfying your voyeuristic needs.

    • socalgold - Dec 20, 2010 at 1:45 PM

      I think you might want to reconsider that notion. What if the information was damaging to the girl and her family? This story based on the known facts has the chance to boomerang back at a family that wants to cherish a memory that they hold.

    • 1historian - Dec 20, 2010 at 2:04 PM

      How would you define transparency? By revealing the name of the accused?
      To quote Mr. Arnold – “St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak declined to file any charges after spending a month reviewing a ‘voluminous report’ turned over by Notre Dame to the county prosecutors…..”
      That means that neither Notre Dame nor the County Prosecutor found any grounds on which to accuse the young man.
      If your wish for transparency had been granted from the beginning, the young man’s name would be public and the fact that he is a member of the Notre Dame football team would make the story irresistible to any and all rags looking for a juicy story.

      His innocence? Not worth reporting. But his name would be MUD for the rest of his life.

  9. irishmj86 - Dec 20, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    The accused have rights, too. Actual rights. Just like you. Just like me.

    And in this case, he is not even the accused! The county prosecutor has done his investigation and declined to press charges, so remember that minor fact before you take this kid to the gallows.

    And remember to pray for this poor family, that they can somehow find some comfort for their unbearable loss of a daughter. My heart goes out to them.

  10. 1historian - Dec 20, 2010 at 1:46 PM

    It seems to me that the University did a thorough investigation and came to the conclusion that there were no grounds on which to accuse the young man.
    If at any point in the investigation the young man accused had been named – no matter what followed his name would have been mud and the accusation – false – would have followed him for the rest of his life. His name should not be divulged no matter what people like Haugh say.

  11. papadec - Dec 20, 2010 at 3:30 PM

    Just how transparent would any student or journalist want the story to be – if they were alleged to have committed a sex crime?

  12. vitaspes - Dec 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM

    Great article Keith – I admire your restraint.

    Much “commentary” and discussion has asked the reader, “put yourself in the Seeberg’s position.” I have and I do not know what I would do. Maybe the same thing they are. Thus far, their actions are not in question.

    However, no “commentray” has asked the reader, “put yourself in the accused’s parents’ position.” I have done that. If my son told me, “dad, I did nothing wrong,” I would hope that the Notre Dame leadership protected his rights while investigating the case.

    The Tribune and other less reputable commentary (hard to read sarcasm on the internet – that was it) have completely avoided the second question. Thank you for your attempt.

    Ironically, most authors on the subject are guilty of the precise sin of which they accuse Notre Dame – financial gain without regard to a young person’s life.

  13. cbhoov144 - Dec 20, 2010 at 7:01 PM

    Keith, Your reply is thoughtful, measured and well-written. Thank you. As a former journalist, I was often amazed by colleagues unable or unwilling to acknowledge that they came to a live evolving story with an inherent bias toward a particular explanation of events. Rather than tell the story, journalists often want to shape it to fit their worldview. I am not so blinded by my affinity for Notre Dame to think that the University or its football program are incapable of making mistakes. But the unprofessional vigor with which David Haugh and the Tribune has pursued this story, with little appreciation for due process and the facts, is disturbing. I enjoyed reading Haugh when he was the South Bend Tribune beat reporter covering the Irish. I don’t know what happened while he was in South Bend or since he departed for Chicago, but it seems clear that he has serious issues with the way the university functions. So many of Brian Kelly’s comments were taken out of context in order to make him appear insensitive and out of touch with the gravity of the issues at hand. (Haugh’s editors are at fault too for their misleading headlines.) He was/is a good writer. Unfortunately it appears that his ambition to be the reporter who breaks the big story is leading him to be irresponsible with his talents. Thank you, Keith, for responding as you did.

  14. schuey73 - Dec 20, 2010 at 8:04 PM

    I used to work in Higher Education at a small, private Catholic University (not Notre Dame). There was a report of a student being sexually assauled. The next day a student approached me and asked, “we all (students) want to know why a girl was raped and nothing is being done about it?” I looked at him and as nicely as I could I asked him, “Do you or your friends work for the university? Do you know something that I don’t? Then how do you know nothing’s being done? You might as well get used to this now, because you’re not going to hear any more about it.” I wasn’t trying to be mean or insensitive to his concerns, but the fact is there are laws that prohibit the university from talking about the details.

    I saw a female student interviewed on the news after it was announced that no criminal charges would be filed. She said, “We want answers.” I’m sorry, but you’re never going to get them. Wether you like it or not the accused student has rights too. For some reason, many journalists (Keith not included) don’t seem to understand that parents and students can say what they want, but the university cannot. Right or wrong, it is what it is.

  15. vegasmark - Dec 20, 2010 at 10:16 PM

    Very well done KA.

  16. vitaspes - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM

    The family wants answers – I do not know think they are going to get them, no matter how much they bash the accused and/or Notre Dame in the court of public opinion.

    Good lawyers might explain this to them.

  17. vitaspes - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    Keith, why don’t you call Regis and ask him for a spot on his show.

  18. nick3ed - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM

    There’s a very good reason why the University has not been as “transparent” as many would prefer. It’s a federal law called Family Eucational Rights and Privacy Act (see Wikipedia:

    In short, the University cannot disclose the facts without the accused studen’ts consent. As for Lizzy’s side, her parents have waived their rights under FERPA by going to the press.

    As far as I can tell, the University has taken painstaking measures to comply with FERPA for the proper protection of the accused (and uncharged student) here. Although FERPA has many drawbacks, I think this is a very appropriate example of what works about it and I’m glad it’s there for the protection of my own children if and when needed.

    I’m very sorry of the tragic events here, but I don’t believe the University is culpable morally or legally in any way.

  19. cailin05 - Dec 21, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    Thank you, Keith, for writing what many of us feel, but don’t have the platform to disseminate the ideas.

  20. bgnd91 - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:41 PM

    i like how people bashing on the university for keeping quiet are completely disregarding privacy laws that ND is obligated to uphold. It really is a lose-lose for ND; they don’t say anything and they get hammered for not being ‘proactive’ and if they went out and into the media with this situation they would get hammered for violating the accused’s privacy. This is America people, you are innocent unless they can prove you guilty, not the other way around. In fact, there was so little evidence in this case that the DA didn’t even feel it was worth it to file charges! It’s not like that was a decision by ND, that was a decision by the prosecutors. Seriously, why do people have to find guilt in everything, even when the PROSECUTORS are basically admitting that there is nothing that they can go off of? As stated above, the Duke lacrosse circus proves nothing constructive happens when you blast out of the game on nothing but here-say. As for the people above acting like the university owes them some sort of explanation … why? What else can they possibly add to, “The DA didn’t feel they could file criminal charges”? Will that provide closure to the family? Absolutely not, but that’s where this thing is at and attempting to speculate that this is just all some big coverup by ND to protect its name is just foolish.

  21. jefmaj - Dec 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    Keith…. I spoke with Bill Beck from the Elkhart Truth, which ran the Haugh article in its entirety. One defense was that Dave writes for a newspaper and many sources are blogs…. we were discussing the issue as to whether Haugh had taken Kelly’s integrity statement out of context…… you quote a question from Haugh and then a larger response from Kelly than Haugh reported. Where you present to hear the question asked or what was your source for the question and BK’s fuller answer?

    • Keith Arnold - Dec 22, 2010 at 3:01 AM

      Watch it yourself…

  22. dmacirish - Dec 21, 2010 at 4:47 PM

    Duke. Anyone? Duke. How are those guys doing since their names were released and then later shown not to be guilty? Hmmmm….

  23. jefmaj - Dec 21, 2010 at 5:42 PM

    She’s passed and since her dad was on ABC trashing ND’s handling of a “Felony”… HIPPA no longer is a concern, he’s opened several doors, and her medical/mental health reports, and her written statements, should be released (he claimed to have them off her hard drive)….. that’s a good start to full discosure……..

  24. richardalfonse - Dec 22, 2010 at 5:45 AM

    Thank you for your excellent and wonderfully controlled article. That the Chicago Tribune printed such poorly substantiated, extremely slanted articles (and most of them deliberately in prime newspaper space) strongly indicates at least some of the editorial staff was involved in this misuse of a newspaper to satisfy personal agendas.

    It would be helpful to Tribune readers to feel that the newspaper’s reporters and editors are trying to inform their readers, not manipulate them.

  25. jefmaj - Dec 27, 2010 at 9:13 AM

    Well, Father Jenkens has spoken…

    and it should be noted:

    Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs
    Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, teens, and young adults. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. EFFEXOR XR® (venlafaxine HCl) is not approved for use in children and teens.

    And, I’m sure alcohol doesn’t help………………..

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!