Debbie Cook is back on the internet.

[Enthetan]

It's pretty obvious she lied under oath to protect DM, or others. Any gag order or settlement couldn't preclude her from telling the truth under oath, so I'd guess the only way to get the truth from her is if she's subpoenaed in another court case.

That might be why (as Jag noted in #37) one of the settlement conditions is often that the former member leave the country. You can't be subpoenaed to testify if you are not within the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[NoName]

I tend to be incredibly sympathetic to Debbie Cook. She was as much victim as perpertrator, in my eyes. She's now years out, and everyone here has observed how different people realize at different stages what they did was wrong. Then they also hold some belief as "that wasn't wrong, that was okay due to saving humanity/eternity/planet". Then, years after, realize and apologize for something they previously didn't.

She did something gutsy (her letter, media interviews, the way she tried to handle the whole thing). She did more than a few things that took courage. It still feels like sort of not enough, and I'm sure it does to those who were crush-regged with her participation or oversight. She has time to come around.

Apologizing, making amends with specific people, and telling her entire story so that others can know what happened to them - that would be the best anyone can do. Of course, she signed away her rights to do that.

At the time, I seem to remember a copy of a letter she wrote to DM or someone, warning them not to come after her due to the knowledge she has that could hurt them (I'm looking for it, don't remember where it is). At the time most of us understood that to be knowledge about how DM was Lisa McPherson's CS, or something else similar regarding Lisa's case.

http://www.lisafiles.com/police/statements/3673.html

It's pretty obvious she lied under oath to protect DM, or others. Any gag order or settlement couldn't preclude her from telling the truth under oath, so I'd guess the only way to get the truth from her is if she's subpoenaed in another court case. In some way, that seems like the best way for her to make amends within the parameter of the settlement she signed. It's a pretty tough and unusual situation for someone to be in.

Her exact words were "I know where the bodies are hidden." I always thought that was probably meant to be taken literally.

 

[Lurker5]

Hello TKN and Love the kitty avatar

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I tend to be incredibly sympathetic to Debbie Cook. She was as much victim as perpertrator, in my eyes. She's now years out, and everyone here has observed how different people realize at different stages what they did was wrong. Then they also hold some belief as "that wasn't wrong, that was okay due to saving humanity/eternity/planet". Then, years after, realize and apologize for something they previously didn't.

She did something gutsy (her letter, media interviews, the way she tried to handle the whole thing). She did more than a few things that took courage. It still feels like sort of not enough, and I'm sure it does to those who were crush-regged with her participation or oversight. She has time to come around.

Apologizing, making amends with specific people, and telling her entire story so that others can know what happened to them - that would be the best anyone can do. Of course, she signed away her rights to do that.

At the time, I seem to remember a copy of a letter she wrote to DM or someone, warning them not to come after her due to the knowledge she has that could hurt them (I'm looking for it, don't remember where it is). At the time most of us understood that to be knowledge about how DM was Lisa McPherson's CS, or something else similar regarding Lisa's case.

http://www.lisafiles.com/police/statements/3673.html

It's pretty obvious she lied under oath to protect DM, or others. Any gag order or settlement couldn't preclude her from telling the truth under oath, so I'd guess the only way to get the truth from her is if she's subpoenaed in another court case. In some way, that seems like the best way for her to make amends within the parameter of the settlement she signed. It's a pretty tough and unusual situation for someone to be in.

as much a victim as a perpetrator?

Only if the definition of victim has morphed beyond all belief.

She was part of screwing over a lot of people and taking PERSONAL advantage of the screwing over - including buying herself a nice sports car. Thats not a "victim" .

She had her chance to expose the stuff she knew - and what did she do? Took the pay off from the cofs - once again living off the money given by the the "other" victims - and, you will note, forever sealing herself off from ever talking about all these "bodies".

And this is a victim?

Gack.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

gruesome...

did you actually live out that scenario?

i never had to sign anyone's clipboard. it just really wasn't a bad scene at fcdc when i was there

and i still had to walk away from it

No. LOL.

But I signed some clipboards in my time.

I was an extremely liberal signer. If the person simply had the willpower to contritely hold up a clipboard for signature,,I'd sign it. I figured they had been punished enough by having to go begging like that--and it made up whatever damage whey were supposed to have caused.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

No. LOL.

But I signed some clipboards in my time.

I was an extremely liberal signer. If the person simply had the willpower to contritely hold up a clipboard for signature,,I'd sign it. I figured they had been punished enough by having to go begging like that--and it made up whatever damage whey were supposed to have caused.

all the groovy people would be liberal signers of course

it's just more of general dog training; making people jump through hoops

 

[TKN]

as much a victim as a perpetrator?

Only if the definition of victim has morphed beyond all belief.

She was part of screwing over a lot of people and taking PERSONAL advantage of the screwing over - including buying herself a nice sports car. Thats not a "victim" .

She had her chance to expose the stuff she knew - and what did she do? Took the pay off from the cofs - once again living off the money given by the the "other" victims - and, you will note, forever sealing herself off from ever talking about all these "bodies".

And this is a victim?

Gack.

I guess that anyone who was taken in by the con enough to believe was a victim. At some point, they take in others or do things to others and become the perpertrator.

When she left, she still believed in LRH, so I guess it might have seemed to her that JUST the "off-policy" regging and donating was wrong or bad. But the on-policy stuff was "okay" in her frame of reference at the time. Maybe even covering up one or more PR flaps for "the greatest good" and to "save the planet" - maybe to her at the time she left she was still doing the "right" thing. And the sports car - she was "able" and was made more "able" and rewarded through the system... a system created by a cheater and liar, but one that she followed (oh, she was "ethical" in the LRH way, right?).

Heaven help her if she has realized what she's personally done to ruin people, and that all of it (not just what she felt bad for at that time) was because of a conman who lied, stole, and ruined people for fun and fame - but at the time she wrote the two letters and gave the interviews, I don't think she'd woken up that far yet. Who knows if she has now?

Watching this board for years, I've seen some people who are absolutely wrought with guilt over what they did when they were "in". But it's palpable, the regret and the apologies, and trying to amend for it. Due to what transpired, she can't have that release, if and when she gets completely out, and that's crappy on a lot of levels. She screwed others, then she screwed herself, and in doing so, screwed those others out of the amends she could have made. But at least her letters and court case and interviews brought another nail in the coffin of the sham, so there's something non-trival, at least.

 

[Leland]

Yes, she took money. I haven't looked into the situation...and don't know all the details. It does seem that she broke what ever agreement she had made with the cult....then sent out the e-mail? Then in that legal wrangling, won, and took some money?

ANYWAY, the only point I wanted to make was that she got $50 thousand. And the guy, her husband? got $50 thousand.

$50 thousand isn't much, these days. It would last but a couple years. You couldn't buy a shack in LA back in the 2000 for less than $250 thousand.

It certainly was not a "golden parachute."

I am in no way, condoning her actions, nor trying to make what she did right.

 

[Jag]

Yes, she took money. I haven't looked into the situation...and don't know all the details. It does seem that she broke what ever agreement she had made with the cult....then sent out the e-mail? Then in that legal wrangling, won, and took some money?

ANYWAY, the only point I wanted to make was that she got $50 thousand. And the guy, her husband? got $50 thousand.

$50 thousand isn't much, these days. It would last but a couple years. You couldn't buy a shack in LA back in the 2000 for less than $250 thousand.

It certainly was not a "golden parachute."

I am in no way, condoning her actions, nor trying to make what she did right.

She got a lot more than that after her court appearance. The $50k was BEFORE her letter went public. By the way, her letter was only sent to some personal friends. It was never meant for the entire scn community. Guess one of her friends decided everyone needed to see it. So glad he/she did.

After her expose in the court room she got some serious "shut the front door" money.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

There is no justification for being a staff member and doing horrible things to other people. I was on staff a couple of times (Cl V Orgs) - never finished my contracts because I couldn't stand the control BS and out-tech. One very high profile org I was on staff at did some horrible things. I wrote up KR after KR but the ED was just like the cult leader, evil. I kept getting attacked mercilessly, so I left.

I have a friend who knows the lawyer that helps some of the sea org when they leave. Debbie did get a settlement (no idea how much) after the court appearance debacle. When the high profile sea org leave, and the church is paying out some serious cash, part of the settlement includes leaving the country for a period of time - Debbie went to Mexico.

I very much admire Mike & Marty for not taking a settlement and doing what they are doing. The cult needs to be attacked and destroyed.

I agree with you, it was awful how some people treated others but demanding cult like grovelling now via the "making up of damage, admission of wrongness" etc so that we can all sit here and "forgive" them is bullshit and almost laughable. It makes me feel as if I am still (mentally) in the poxy cult just by reading it.

In the real world if you take to the internet and slag people off (using names) you could reasonably expect to end up in court yourself for defamation, nobody out here gives a damn about our (previous) culty expectations of "ethics" ... and rightly so.

I feel that admiring Marty (and Mosey) for not taking a settlement is a bit premature because I expect he will when the figure offered is enough and so would I, he's got a lot of time to make up and a family to provide for ... we don't have to like it (or him) because it's none of our business unless we do the same thing and take it to the legal system and fight it out. We can chat and laugh and have opinions till we are all blue in the face but apart from being good fun, it won't change a thing.

Its only in the cult where everybody is taught that they have the right to poke around in other peoples business, make demands and "observations" about others and generally act like the twerps that they mostly are.

The cult certainly does need to be destroyed though and you won't find many here that will disagree with that sentiment.

Welcome to ESMB!



PS None of the above is directed at you ... I just used your post to splatter my own thoughts about (lol).

 

[Free Being Me]

>snip< she doesn't have to "come clean" (that's a culty attitude if ever I've heard one) and she doesn't have to "make amends" >snip<

>snip> demanding cult like grovelling now via the "making up of damage, admission of wrongness" etc so that we can all sit here and "forgive" them is bullshit and almost laughable. >snip<

Has anyone said or suggested such on this thread? :confused2:

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Has anyone said or suggested such on this thread? :confused2:

It has definitely been said and certainly been implied, though not necessarily on this thread (I haven't read or re-read every post on ESMB and won't be doing so now though).

 

[Free Being Me]

It has definitely been said and certainly been implied, though not necessarily on this thread (I haven't read or re-read every post on ESMB and won't be doing so now though).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[freethinker]

I'm not saying she has to make up the damage. To make up the damage when you are told to isn't as worthy IMO than deciding to do it yourself. In fact, to me, it is the only way you can make up damage is by your own decision. The big difference to me, in how the cult does it, is to have you make up some imagined damage that wasn't necessarily damage or not nearly damage of any great degree. The problem with it is it isn't you fessing up and fixing something, it's them deciding that it was bad AND what THEY think you should do about it. "Correction" of that kind has never really worked IMO.

Coming clean is not just a culty thing. We all expect people to be honest with us in our dealings with each other. Parents expect their kids to fess up so it is more widespread than just cults but if the person doesn't do it on their own conscience then their fessing up will probably be valueless. Beating out a confession isn't that reliable and doesn't necessarily make them feel guilt and they may just be confessing to something they didn't do, just to stop the badgering.

.

It has definitely been said and certainly been implied, though not necessarily on this thread (I haven't read or re-read every post on ESMB and won't be doing so now though).

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I'm not saying she has to make up the damage. To make up the damage when you are told to isn't as worthy IMO than deciding to do it yourself. In fact, to me, it is the only way you can make up damage is by your own decision. The big difference to me, in how the cult does it, is to have you make up some imagined damage that wasn't necessarily damage or not nearly damage of any great degree. The problem with it is it isn't you fessing up and fixing something, it's them deciding that it was bad AND what THEY think you should do about it. "Correction" of that kind has never really worked IMO.

Coming clean is not just a culty thing. We all expect people to be honest with us in our dealings with each other. Parents expect their kids to fess up so it is more widespread than just cults but if the person doesn't do it on their own conscience then their fessing up will probably be valueless. Beating out a confession isn't that reliable and doesn't necessarily make them feel guilt and they may just be confessing to something they didn't do, just to stop the badgering.

.

Agreed (pretty much).

I'm just very wary when I see that old culty attitude creeping in to ESMB ... it would be so easy to slip back into the cult mindset while it is still in the process of it being erased (perhaps for our many lurkers and new people) and we do have "indies" here that still have a tendency to think in that scio way and push it when they feel they can (or just be genuinely chatting but using that ingrained mindset) ... and I will call it if I see (or feel) it even if I'm wrong because it may just be what it takes to keep someone reading here on the path out of the mental mess that scientology seems to create and that really matters to me.

 

[Boomima]

Agreed (pretty much).

I'm just very wary when I see that old culty attitude creeping in to ESMB ... it would be so easy to slip back into the cult mindset while it is still in the process of it being erased (perhaps for our many lurkers and new people) and we do have "indies" here that still have a tendency to think in that scio way and push it when they feel they can (or just be genuinely chatting but using that ingrained mindset) ... and I will call it if I see (or feel) it even if I'm wrong because it may just be what it takes to keep someone reading here on the path out of the mental mess that scientology seems to create and that really matters to me.

I was never in and I think that what she did while she was in should not be forgotten. I don't think joining the CoS is a blanket excuse for any and all bad behavior. If she really "knows where the bodies are buried" that means she knew something when those terrible things happened and allowed them to take place. She also did some terrible things and benefited personally which I gather not everyone gets to do in the CoS.

I don't think that coming out and writing an email means that the slate is wiped clean. There is nothing wrong with remembering what someone did when it was truly awful and they have not said they were wrong and that they are sorry. (Sort of like Marty and Annie Tidwell.)

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I was never in and I think that what she did while she was in should not be forgotten. I don't think joining the CoS is a blanket excuse for any and all bad behavior. If she really "knows where the bodies are buried" that means she knew something when those terrible things happened and allowed them to take place. She also did some terrible things and benefited personally which I gather not everyone gets to do in the CoS.

I don't think that coming out and writing an email means that the slate is wiped clean. There is nothing wrong with remembering what someone did when it was truly awful and they have not said they were wrong and that they are sorry. (Sort of like Marty and Annie Tidwell.)

Its complicated ... and I'm not really disagreeing with anything you have just said, but when people are trying to lose a certain mindset (in this case a particularly invasive one) I like to see them taking each piece apart and not risking falling back into the cult mindset where all your thinking was pre-done for you and leads further and further down the path to paranoia and extreme weirdness.

I suppose I'm a "clean the slate and start again" kind of person (I'm still referring to people working at losing scio thinking now, not anyone specific) but I realise that not everyone works that way. Ideally (in my world) after the slate has been thoroughly scrubbed and disinfected of cult residue each of us then adds back the essence of who we really are, our values and how we want to live our lives and that will include things that could appear "cultic" (like this issue) but are actually just normal responses and I have no disagreement at all with that (why would I?) ... we do have a lot of newbies at the moment and always have lots of lurkers though and I suppose I keep on about this issue in case it's helpful to them as well as for my own intention to rid the world (and ESMB) of scientology thinking.

 

[PTS]

Can the judgement. None of us know her whole story. We only know the parts that we know. None of us have been her.

Debbie has had a rougher time in the cult than most of us did. She was subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation, and very likely reverse auditing too. It takes a strong soul to come through an ordeal like that. I am happy that she is happy. Many who escape are still trying to get there. Perhaps one day she will share some more of her story, perhaps not, but that is for her, not us, to decide.

And in instances such as this, if you are a "never in" then you really have no business looking down your nose at Debbie or anyone else who has come out of $cientology. You really just have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Can the judgement. None of us know her whole story. We only know the parts that we know. None of us have been her.

Debbie has had a rougher time in the cult than most of us did. She was subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation, and very likely reverse auditing too. It takes a strong soul to come through an ordeal like that. I am happy that she is happy. Many who escape are still trying to get there. Perhaps one day she will share some more of her story, perhaps not, but that is for her, not us, to decide.

And in instances such as this, if you are a "never in" then you really have no business looking down your nose at Debbie or anyone else who has come out of $cientology. You really just have no idea what you're talking about.

I was in.

And I call bullshit.

I'm really fucking tired of the all-encompassing, "it was a cult," "I was brain-washed" get out of jail free, nobody was or is responsible for their behavior, card.

Let's see how this works.

You were never a member of the Nazi party in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never a member of the Chinese Communist party during the Cultural Revolution, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never a member of the Khemer Rouge, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never a member of the Hutu Militia, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You weren't a member of U.S. Army, and weren't there for the My Lai Massacre, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never part of the Manson Family, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

It is funny how it works. A kid grows up on Compton or East LA without a father, with a crack addicted mother, gets no education, is jumped into a gang before he is a teenager, and society has no problem holding him responsible for his actions as an adult.

But a middle class or upper middle class person with an education makes the choice to join and continue in Scientology, and you say we can't judge?

Bullshit.

Also, with regard to Debbie Cook specifically, it might be nice to get the timeline right. Debbie was "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation" after she had herself she had abused, exploited and regged to death people for years. I am not suggesting that she deserved to be "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation," or that she pulled it in. What I'm saying is that it makes no logical sense to try to excuse her behavior by noting she had been "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation" when her being "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation" occurred after she herself had abused, exploited and regged to death people for years.

[As for the dreaded "reverse auditing," it is funny how some now critics try to have it both ways. They say auditing is completely ineffectual and, quite frankly, a joke, but inconsistently assert that "reverse" auditing was completely effectual in ruining people.]

Anyone who was never in Scientology has a perfect right to consider the conduct, behavior and actions of someone who was a member (staff or public) of the Church of Scientology and conclude that the person was, at that time, based on their actions at that time, a vile, reprehensible, scum sucking piece of shit. To put it kindly.

The truth is that, unlike US, the vast majority of people who were introduced to Scientology chose NOT to abuse others, but instead never got involved or left.

Give that some thought. What made US so special? So pathetically weak, selfish, power-hungry, and/or greedy that, when others would not and did not, we chose to abandon our parents, spouses, and/or children? Regged people into bankruptcy? Lied to people? Spied on people?

Personally, I'm glad Debbie is out and happy. I personally don't have any recriminations against her. But to say that nobody can judge her for her conduct while she was in, or that people who weren't in can't judge her based on her conduct while she was in, is complete, festering bullshit.

How convenient to be a ex-Scientologist. Nobody is responsible for their behavior while they were a poor, mind-controlled "victim" of the Church of Scientology.

How did it work, exactly, when everyone was a victim, and nobody (except perhaps DM) was victimizer? Did DM hold a gun to everyone's head?

So, no, nobody has to fucking "can the judgement." Civilized people who were never in can pass judgment on Ex-Scientologists, just like they pass judgment on Ex-Nazi's, Ex-Cultural Revolution Communists, Ex-Khemer Rouge killer, Ex-Hutu Militia, etc.

If somebody while in Scientology engaged in conduct that made that person a scum sucking piece of shit then, guess what? That person was a scum sucking piece of shit.

 

[DoneDeal]

I was in.

And I call bullshit.

I'm really fucking tired of the all-encompassing, "it was a cult," "I was brain-washed" get out of jail free, nobody was or is responsible for their behavior, card.

Let's see how this works.

You were never a member of the Nazi party in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never a member of the Chinese Communist party during the Cultural Revolution, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never a member of the Khemer Rouge, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never a member of the Hutu Militia, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You weren't a member of U.S. Army, and weren't there for the My Lai Massacre, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

You were never part of the Manson Family, and don't know what pressures and "mind control" such people were subjected to, so you can't judge.

It is funny how it works. A kid grows up on Compton or East LA without a father, with a crack addicted mother, gets no education, is jumped into a gang before he is a teenager, and society has no problem holding him responsible for his actions as an adult.

But a middle class or upper middle class person with an education makes the choice to join and continue in Scientology, and you say we can't judge?

Bullshit.

Also, with regard to Debbie Cook specifically, it might be nice to get the timeline right. Debbie was "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation" after she had herself she had abused, exploited and regged to death people for years. I am not suggesting that she deserved to be "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation," or that she pulled it in. What I'm saying is that it makes no logical sense to try to excuse her behavior by noting she had been "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation" when her "subjected to abuse, involuntary confinement, degradation" occurred after she herself had abused, exploited and regged to death people for years.

[As for the dreaded "reverse auditing," it is funny how some now critics try to have it both ways. They say auditing is completely ineffectual and, quite frankly, a joke, but inconsistently assert that "reverse" auditing was completely effectual in ruining people.]

Anyone who was never in Scientology has a perfect righto to consider the conduct, behavior and actions of someone who was a member (staff or public) of the Church of Scientology and conclude that the person was, at that time, based on their actions at that time, a vile, reprehensible, scum sucking piece of shit. To put it kindly.

The truth is that, unlike US, the vast majority of people who were introduced to Scientology chose NOT to abuse others, but instead never got involved or left.

Give that some thought. What made US so special? So pathetically weak, selfish, power-hungry, and/or greedy that, when others would not and did not, we chose to abandon our parents, spouses, and/or children? Regged people into bankruptcy? Lied to people? Spied on people?

Personally, I'm glad Debbie is out and happy. I personally don't have any recriminations against her. But to say that nobody can judge her for her conduct while she was in, or that people who weren't in can't judge her based on her conduct while she was in, is complete, festering bullshit.

How convenient to be a ex-Scientologist. Nobody is responsible for their behavior while they were a poor, mind-controlled "victim" of the Church of Scientology.

How did it work, exactly, when everyone was a victim, and nobody (except perhaps DM) was victimizer? Did DM hold a gun to everyone's head?

So, no, nobody has to fucking "can the judgement." Civilized people who were never in can pass judgment on Ex-Scientologists, just like they pass judgment on Ex-Nazi's, Ex-Cultural Revolution Communists, Ex-Khemer Rouge killer, Ex-Hutu Militia, etc.

If somebody while in Scientology engaged in conduct that made that person a scum sucking piece of shit then, guess what? That person was a scum sucking piece of shit.

I used to say in here "someone poured the poison"....didn't win me any friends. lol.

Loved your post.