1） Jane Doe的一些回忆被证明虚假，比如她以为她杀了修女。在她的日记中，她将自己恢复的一段、被一位神父性侵的记忆称为“bull crap”。（但必须承认，谁都有记错的时候，所以Jean有错误记忆本身是合理的。但影片本身对这些错误记忆一笔带过其实有点不合理。）
2） Jane Doe是在八九十年代的一系列心理和生理治疗中逐渐恢复记忆的。她有一套自我疗法叫“和内心孩童的对话（dialoguing with inner child）”。我去查了一下这个疗法，就像所有治疗学的方法一样，这个疗法其实更偏重个人体验，不被经验主义的法庭认同并不奇怪。简报中对此疗法的详细说明是“Doe和她的多个内在自我进行过对话，其中有些自我被她命了名，包括Jeannie，Beth（非常被动），Gloria（放肆的），Ethel（清教徒的），Martha（唯物主义的/拜金主义的，我不知道该怎么翻译）”
3） Jane Doe在法庭上提供的性侵者名单不仅限于本片提及的Maskell、Magnus、Brother Bob、一个穿警服的警官。
Even though I highly recommend this documentary, I was perplexed by a few things. At the end of the series, we meet Charles Franz, the dentist. He is portrayed as a key figure because his mother lodged a complaint with the Catholic Church in Baltimore that Maskell had been abusing her son. The Church didn’t deny the allegations, but moved Maskell elsewhere—actually to Bishop Keough High School. This is important because the Church would later claim that it had no knowledge of Maskell’s criminal conduct until Jean came forward in 1992.
The reason I’m perplexed is that in an earlier episode, we’re told that a “no-nonsense” Principal named Sister Marylita Friia told Maskell that he had just 15 minutes to pack up his things and get out of Bishop Keough in 1975. We’re told that Sister Friia took this action against Maskell because of numerous complaints from parents. Oddly, the film breezes right along and we never hear about this incident anymore. Why? Is Friia still alive? If so, why wasn’t she interviewed? What were the nature of the complaints against Maskell at that time? Isn’t getting kicked out of Keough the second disciplinary action against Maskell (after Franz’s family got Maskell removed from his school) by the Church? That makes the Church’s subsequent protestation of ignorance even weaker.
Next, Bishop Malooly had an odd reply when the filmmakers confronted the Church about his meeting with Franz in the early 1990s. According to Franz, Malooly and Church lawyers were frightened by the prospect of Franz’s abuse coming to light and so offered to buy his silence with a new boat, which Franz quickly rejected. Malooly denies attempting to buy Franz’s silence but admits that he met with Franz for “counseling purposes.” But wait just a second—counseling for what Malooly? It seems that Malooly has conceded enough even without admitting to the boat gambit. The key point is that the Church was aware of Franz’s abuse (again in the early 1990s) and yet pretended that Jean was the first person with a complaint against Maskell.
The film leaves viewers in the dark as to why Franz did not step forward when Jean’s lawsuit was all over the news. Had he come forward, the Church’s defense would have crumbled. Like other victims, he probably was not ready to have his experience reported on the news. That’s certainly understandable, but viewers are left guessing because the question was never asked, at least in the film.
Another angle that was totally underdeveloped in the documentary was the fact that Maskell had a brother in the Baltimore Police Department. The film mentions this in passing 2-3 times but always breezes right along. That was very odd. Is Maskell’s brother alive? If so, was there any attempt to interview him? What rank did he attain before he retired or died? Several Baltimore cops were interviewed but no questions about Maskell’s brother on the force? That was peculiar.
The film reports that the Church sent Maskell and other priests to a place called the Institute for Living. One of the counselors/therapists who worked there explains that the Church would tell the Institute a priest was suffering from “depression,” but that the priest would say he was sent there because he had sex with a minor and the Church was worried about the incident coming to light. The film is unclear about whether that priest was Maskell or another priest. In any event, this is another discrepancy with the Church’s claim that it had no knowledge of sex abuse by priests. This is because, as the film relates, the Institute declined to take on more patient-priests unless the Church would provide the real reasons behind the referral. Either the filmmakers didn’t press the Church on this point with written questions at the end, or they didn’t include it in the film for some reason.
One of the infuriating aspects of the scandal is the incompetence or corruption found in the investigative authorities. Here are a few examples. First, Sharon May was the prosecutor in charge of the Sex Offender Unit. She appears in the film to defend her conduct while in office. Over and over again, she repeats her point that to prevail in court a prosecutor must have sufficient proof. But her defense is pathetic because the film shows that she was either unable or unwilling to do any investigative work to gather evidence and build a case against Maskell and others. Police found boxes and boxes of records that Maskell had buried in a cemetery and Sharon May essentially folds her arms and declares “That’s just not enough! I can’t go to court with that.” Pathetic. Law school students could have done much better than May.
Second, it is also evident that there is much tension between the police working for Baltimore County and those working for Baltimore City. Both agencies were working on the murder of Sister Cathy Cesnik. Gary Childs, a cold case detective with the County is interviewed toward the end of the documentary and he has to stop the interview to call the City police about a letter from Cesnik that was received after she went missing. Childs seems to know a few things about the letter, but has never read its contents and is unsure who has the letter now. He seems to be getting the runaround from the City (i.e. perhaps something like, ‘we had the letter but it is no longer in the file,’ or whatever) but is unwilling to call his counterparts out on it.
The police keep saying the investigations are “on-going” as if they’ve been working very hard but it is apparent that the police are mainly concerned about how the documentary is going to make them appear to the public. The Cesnik case is 50 years old and the police only recently exhumed the body of Maskell to gather his DNA to run tests against other evidence at the crime scene. What a coincidence that the police have exhumed the body just when the makers of “The Keepers” appear in Baltimore interviewing witnesses and asking lots of questions about the case!
The FBI cultivates an image of being the “premier” investigative agency in the world, but that’s simply good public relations. As the documentary shows, the Bureau has completely failed the Malecki family. Joyce Malecki’s body was found near a military base so the FBI took the lead on the matter. County investigators backed off and deferred to the Bureau. Now there’s finger-pointing between the agencies: The FBI says it determined that Malecki’s murder had no connection to the military base and turned the matter over to the county. The county says the case was never surrendered by the Bureau so it took virtually no action on the murder case. Even after several decades, Bureau officials have declined to release some 4,000 pages of documents it has on the case. And, incredibly, the Bureau told the Malecki family that even though it has fingerprint and DNA evidence from the crime scene, it didn’t have enough staff and budget to run that evidence against existing databases. What?!
Toward the end of the documentary, the dogged amateur sleuths, Gemma and Abbie, zero in on a few suspects who may have played a part in the murder of Cathy Cesnik. Brian Schmidt, now deceased, gave a recorded interview to Alan Horn where he divulged that he was around the men who did it when he was around 10-12 years old. Although the men tried to keep him distracted and in the dark about what they were up to, Brian is pretty confident that he pieced it all together afterwards. Brian identifies his Uncle Billy (Schmidt) and his friend “Skippy,” as having moved Cathy’s body from the apartment complex to the property near the family business. Brian identifies another man, his “Uncle Bobby,” who was tasked with keeping Brian distracted in the woods while the other men carried Cathy’s body from the car trunk to a spot in the woods.
The odd thing is that the film breezes right along without following up on Brian’s mention of an “Uncle Bobby.” We hear much about Uncle Billy and his eventual suicide. We hear some stories about Skippy and how he seemed to disappear. Why not more about Uncle Bobby? What’s his full name? Is he still alive? Maskell introduced Jean to a man he called “Brother Bob.” And Brother Bob told Jean that he killed Cathy. An obvious question is whether Uncle Bobby is also Brother Bob. It is peculiar that the film doesn’t tell us more about all this. For example, Jean recalls some identifying marks on Brother Bob’s torso so one is left wondering whether anyone in the Schmidt family can confirm or dispel those marks about Uncle Bob.
“The Keepers” is a terrific but heartbreaking documentary. Let’s hope that it generates more pressure on the obstinate law enforcement agencies to uncover the full and complete story.
兴奋！就如第一次看Spotlight一样，为媒体自豪。但比看Spotlight更兴奋的是，感觉到自己被牵入其中，看Nerflix和各位Keepers的一盘大棋，对Nerflix尤生敬畏，此等胆识，再加上精良的制作和理性的描述和剪辑，你能再次感受到媒体行业一个被其“娱乐性”压制很久的品质--适时有力的扣问锤以及理性的宣传导向剑。
去看了FB，看到了Gemma的Po文，原来的群组已经关闭，现在是一个由Netflix剧集为主导的官方群租，更多的人参与进来。
剧集于2017年5月19日上线，到目前还没有10天，反响的涟漪在慢慢推开，我认为有些问题因时间距离太远，相关人逐渐离世可能终将成为秘密。但是，相关的人会寿终正寝，牵涉的机构和体制还不会，被这个机构和体制影响的人还存在在城市当中。
他们的扣问微弱吗，就像投入深井的小石子听不到回应吗，那么等待好了，因为小石子现在在变大！
如果我能为自己或是为别人发声，这就是机会。
这就像是一道小裂缝，我个人认为我正在做的事，也就是面对恐惧，正在接近那道裂缝，并说：
“哈喽，你知道我们在这里吗？有人在那里吗？”
仍然一片静默。但我们在聆听彼此了，因为我们都接近了那条裂缝。
结果就是，我们会遇到彼此，在裂缝处相会。
在你注意到之前，那股心声的强大压力，已然渗出那条裂缝，并且要粉碎它了。
1. 一份残缺不全的1995年9月的法院上诉简报中提及了以下几个让我不安的信息：
简报就在外网，大家可以搜doe v maskell consolidated brief
因为它不完整，我甚至不能确定这份文件是真的，所以大家自己判断
我给本片打的分数就在文章上方，我认同纪录片的观点，即参与拍摄的幸存者的主要指控是属实的，但这不能抑止我想看到更客观公正的纪录片的愿望，所以，以下
1） Jane Doe的一些回忆被证明虚假，比如她以为她杀了修女。在她的日记中，她将自己恢复的一段、被一位神父性侵的记忆称为“bull crap”。（但必须承认，谁都有记错的时候，所以Jean有错误记忆本身是合理的。但影片本身对这些错误记忆一笔带过其实有点不合理。）
2） Jane Doe是在八九十年代的一系列心理和生理治疗中逐渐恢复记忆的。她有一套自我疗法叫“和内心孩童的对话（dialoguing with inner child）”。我去查了一下这个疗法，就像所有治疗学的方法一样，这个疗法其实更偏重个人体验，不被经验主义的法庭认同并不奇怪。简报中对此疗法的详细说明是“Doe和她的多个内在自我进行过对话，其中有些自我被她命了名，包括Jeannie，Beth（非常被动），Gloria（放肆的），Ethel（清教徒的），Martha（唯物主义的/拜金主义的，我不知道该怎么翻译）”
3） Jane Doe在法庭上提供的性侵者名单不仅限于本片提及的Maskell、Magnus、Brother Bob、一个穿警服的警官。
性侵者还有至少三个学校老师，Carpenter先生、“丝绸手帕先生”、Mimi DiPietro（一个享有盛誉的政客，巴尔的摩太阳报给他发的长篇悼词大家还可以搜到，Jane Doe回忆说他在她为他口交时练习政治演说）
另外三位神父，Schmidt神父、John神父、Daniel神父；religious brothers Tim（Jean事后称此人不存在，是她记错了）、Brother Frank和Brother Ed（导演Ryan White在AMA回应称，一些性侵者的名字在影片中未被提及是为了避免法律纠纷，这是帮忙审核影片的律师给出的建议。
甚至还有穿着传统修女制服的Sister Nancy和Sister Russell也参与了性侵。Jean Doe承认这个记忆有些“荒谬而难以接受”；
4） 诉方（appellants）律师所作的这篇简报里形容Jane Roe关于记忆恢复过程的证词所用的词汇让我觉得极其欠揍，说她 “hopelessly confused and inconsistent”。你们是在客观陈述事实，并且是在为她辩护，这个语气是怎么回事？？
这样看起来影片是把幸存者记忆那些存在不确定性的部分都删除了，从增强可看性的角度考虑是正确的，我们不需要一部30小时的纪录片，但我认为仅仅用心理学家们在“恢复记忆”上的对立代表当年漫长的审判过程里令人生疑的细节是不恰当的，将当时的部分民众对此案持有的立场统统归结为对教会的信任也容易让人产生困惑。网络上有不少人在看到审判资料时和我的感想一样，觉得影片的概述制造了迷惑的空白。
2. Maskell的尸体在影片制作期间被警方挖了出来，其DNA与Cathy被发现的现场搜集到的DNA样本不符
3. Maskell被证明也参与了距离Keough高中不远的一所Catholic Community Middle School的性侵包庇事件。两校都是School Sisters of Notre Dame创办的。在这所中学里，从七十年代初直到79年，老师John Merzbacher性侵了少年少女，甚至强迫他们与彼此发生性行为。与Maskell很相似的是，Merzbacher也很喜欢枪，常常拿出左轮来恐吓受害的学生。他曾经在强奸学生时用枪指着学生的头，曾经用上膛的枪在孩子们头上玩“俄罗斯轮盘赌”。一个受侵害的孩子在目击Merzbacher与该校当时的校长（一位修女）发生性关系后，将此事告诉了TA的同学。学校得知后立刻叫Maskell来为孩子做“心理评估”。至于“评估”发生了什么，我们不得而知。Tom Nugent认为这是巴尔的摩总教区早在七十年代就知道两所学校内发生的性侵事件的证明。
Merzbacher在1995年终于被学生告倒了，被判4次终身监禁加10年。我想他被判的原因应该是他并非神职人员。
4. 只有我很在意的一个问题：Cathy和Koob的最后一封通信暗示了他们的关系并不是Koob描述的“柏拉图式恋爱”，起码Cathy所使用的语言指出了她对Koob非柏拉图式的渴望。尤其让人感到奇怪的是Cathy提起了月经迟来一事（我不明白为什么影片再现的信件里月经一词加上了引号）
我想月经这个信息指向两个可能：
1） Cathy已经和Koob有了亲密关系→这和Koob描述的柏拉图关系不符；
2） Cathy其他的书信写得都非常委婉，符合一个英语老师和修女的行事特征，唯独这一封使用了非常直白的字眼→信有可能是假的；
针对2我做了些调查：Koob澄清信是手写的，并非本片情景再现的那样出自打字机。
更重要的一点是，片中公布的信并不完整，原始信件有5页长。记者Bon Erlandson持有信的后半段的手抄版，大致意思是说Cathy因为Koob说或做过的一件事感到难过。
仅从信件来看，我的看法是Koob在和Cathy的真实关系上说谎了，或者信件是假的。假设信件是真的，Koob谎称他们保持着柏拉图关系的理由可能是为了保护Cathy的名誉。Tom Nugent在2005年的文章中称，Koob曾向警察承认他和Cathy发生过性关系。但后来Koob一直否认这一点。
Tom Nugent在2018年的AMA中透露，一些警方线人提供的情报表明“他们已经持有重要证据显示Koob神父在Cathy的谋杀案中扮演了不为人所知的重要角色。”Nugent相信Koob极有可能就是Brother Bob。
Koob的孩子随后在Reddit上澄清，Koob并没有Jean描述的胎记和腹部伤疤。因此，虽然我怀疑Koob证词的可信度，但我并不认为Koob就是Brother Bob。
5. Podcast《Out of the Shadows》对The Keepers的后续跟进和梳理值得一听，网址是shadowspod.com
如果不想亲自听，可以继续往下看我的总结
6. Schmidt一家：
1）Sharon Schmidt在podcast说，她父亲Ronnie在给警方的供词中提到，她叔叔Billy Schmidt在Cathy死前就对她有一种病态迷恋。
Billy Schmidt在据称与Skippy交往的期间是订婚的，他尽力隐瞒自己的同性恋身份，后来与未婚妻结了婚。
2）Sharon Schmidt的曾祖母，Billy的祖母于1973年被谋杀。警方怀疑是熟人作案。
3）Sharon在片中提到她父亲Ronnie醉酒后冲她母亲大喊“你知道我为什么喝酒？我们杀了一个女人。”这不是完整版本。Sharon补充，当时Ronnie接着说“我们杀了父亲的女朋友，用打字机打烂了她的头，然后把她的尸体扔在了店铺后面。”事实上他父亲的女朋友活得好好的。Sharon认为Ronnie酒后犯糊涂，把谋杀对象搞混了。
4）Ronnie也习惯用双脚开车。
5）Ed Davidson在Cathy生前常去Cathy住的公寓楼参加派对。Sharon认为他是去参加Billy办的派对，因为根据她的了解，Ed和Billy都有异装癖。
6）Gemma Hoskins说Maskell在很多混乱的地方流连，比如东城的同性恋俱乐部。Sharon的母亲回忆Billy经常去一个叫Cicero’s的酒吧。这个酒吧本该因为毒品和武器泛滥问题而关闭，一种说法是，上文提到的性侵者，政客Mimi DiPietro，从中作梗导致了这个地方的兴盛。
7）Sharon的弟弟Brian曾受过脑损伤，再加上他目击所称的犯罪发生在他五六岁的时候，他的证词可能有瑕疵。
7. Maskell的受害者之一Cindy Lovell在podcast上讲述了她的经历：
她十三岁那年被Maskell叫到办公室，遭到多次迷奸。随后Maskell用迷奸时拍下的照片勒索她（这些照片还有其他用途，Maskell有个照片集，他的共犯来学校时，他会把照片集拿出来给他们挑选，看这次要侵犯哪个女生），用枪和言语威胁她（Maskell知道她父亲有前科），强迫她在清醒状态下与多人性交。这些人中包括Magnus和警察。当Cindy终于鼓起勇气对Maskell说她要告知父母时，他打电话给她的父母，说她可能得了脑瘤，肿瘤压迫神经使她产生了幻觉。
后来她开始吸大麻。她告诉老师Sister Judas（我不确定，真的有修女叫这个名字吗？）Maskell在强奸她，修女不相信她的话，转而打电话叫Maskell领走她。性侵持续到二年级就突然终止了，她一面感到轻松，一面却有些难过——“为什么他不需要我了？”然后她听到其他女生的名字时不时在广播上出现，“请到Maskell神父的办公室”。
她在Keough没有什么朋友，因为其他女生拒绝和“Maskell的女孩”来往。她的一句话特别能反应她当时的绝望：“十四岁的我对性和男人的变态的了解胜过许多结婚生子、度过幸福一生的女人临终时的了解。”
她和很多人试图发展过亲密关系，结过婚，生了两个孩子，但每段关系都是虐待性质的，因为Maskell教她“性和爱完全是一回事儿。强奸你、伤害你、往你的身体里插入东西是因为他们爱你。”
婚后她在圣奥古斯汀教堂教CCD课。有一天，她正在给孩子们上课时（她自己的孩子也在教堂上课），Maskell突然作为新牧师出现在她的教堂。他一眼就认出了她，说“Lovell小姐，好久不见。我们应该好好聊聊。”之后她慌张地四处寻找她的孩子，确保Maskell没有靠近他们一步。她因为对Maskell的恐惧渐渐远离了教堂。
现在Cindy创立了自己的咨询公司，为人们提供精神指导，为性侵幸存的女性组建了谈话圈。她正在写一本书，讲述她的过去和奋斗历程。
她与目前的男友已经交往了二十年，他们过得很好。
8. 另一位幸存者Michele Stanton把Ed Davidson和第一个赶到Cathy尸体现场的警察James Scannell联系了起来：
Davidson习惯到她当时所在的初中周围游荡，常常开着不同的跑车，她14岁，和Davidson熟稔后会上车和他兜风。Davidson在车上猥亵过她几次，但她没告诉过任何人，因为她觉得和陌生人一起玩是成熟的表现。有一次Davidson带她去见一个越战告假的士兵，车上还有其他人，其中一个人是James Scannell, 另一个人对她动手动脚，她感到非常害怕，以为她要有麻烦了，所以她也没跟任何人提起这件事。由于她的晚归，她的母亲多次报警，其中一次Scannell接警去了她家。等到她回家，Scannell站在客厅对她露出了奇怪的笑容。
Michele还于1969年9月受朋友邀请去过Cathy的公寓。她回忆说，Cathy和Russell没穿修女服，屋里有两个她不认识的男人，还有弹吉他和抽大麻的年轻人。中途有人请她去一个房间，她不记得任何发生在房间里的事了，只记得她离开时感到不舒服，所以后来再也没有去过Cathy的公寓。
9. 主教Malooly说总教区1994年去找医生Charles Franz是因为一个教堂的音乐指导说他可能有与Maskell有关的信息，以及“送船”这事儿从来没发生过。
10. 警方在Cathy的车里发现一根黄色的线是谣传。
转向灯上的不是树枝，而是一根很长的干草。
11. 关于Maskell的历史：
Maskell的母亲嫁给了她的继父。
Maskell的姐妹仍然在世，她对媒体称针对Maskell的指控纯属子无须有。
Maskell十四岁就进入了神学院，但一个周后就因为想家回到了家里。
Maskell有个同父异母的兄弟叫Joseph Tommy Maskell，曾是巴尔的摩市警察局的警官。影片未做详细说明的一点是，此人于66年受枪伤后退休，但没有资料提及枪伤的位置。退休后的JTM过得非常不如意，做过保险理算员，后来又成为了汽车销售。
12. 还有两名16岁少女在商场附近失踪，尸体随后在不同区域被发现
1970年——Pamela Lynn Conyers
1971年——Grace Montanye
13. 马里兰州的童年性侵法定追诉时效被延长到了38岁。
之后了解到案件新进展会回来补充
—
Death
by Catherine Cesnik , 1959
Some people meet death with open arms
And thank god their time has come.
Others beg to be spared for just one more day
Saying there is much to be done.
But if we, before performing an act, would stop and think of death
Of death, of judgement and of all such things
I’m sure we would do our best
So that when our time comes, we may say:
“Take me lord without delay.”
-
Even though I highly recommend this documentary, I was perplexed by a few things. At the end of the series, we meet Charles Franz, the dentist. He is portrayed as a key figure because his mother lodged a complaint with the Catholic Church in Baltimore that Maskell had been abusing her son. The Church didn’t deny the allegations, but moved Maskell elsewhere—actually to Bishop Keough High School. This is important because the Church would later claim that it had no knowledge of Maskell’s criminal conduct until Jean came forward in 1992.
The reason I’m perplexed is that in an earlier episode, we’re told that a “no-nonsense” Principal named Sister Marylita Friia told Maskell that he had just 15 minutes to pack up his things and get out of Bishop Keough in 1975. We’re told that Sister Friia took this action against Maskell because of numerous complaints from parents. Oddly, the film breezes right along and we never hear about this incident anymore. Why? Is Friia still alive? If so, why wasn’t she interviewed? What were the nature of the complaints against Maskell at that time? Isn’t getting kicked out of Keough the second disciplinary action against Maskell (after Franz’s family got Maskell removed from his school) by the Church? That makes the Church’s subsequent protestation of ignorance even weaker.
Next, Bishop Malooly had an odd reply when the filmmakers confronted the Church about his meeting with Franz in the early 1990s. According to Franz, Malooly and Church lawyers were frightened by the prospect of Franz’s abuse coming to light and so offered to buy his silence with a new boat, which Franz quickly rejected. Malooly denies attempting to buy Franz’s silence but admits that he met with Franz for “counseling purposes.” But wait just a second—counseling for what Malooly? It seems that Malooly has conceded enough even without admitting to the boat gambit. The key point is that the Church was aware of Franz’s abuse (again in the early 1990s) and yet pretended that Jean was the first person with a complaint against Maskell.
The film leaves viewers in the dark as to why Franz did not step forward when Jean’s lawsuit was all over the news. Had he come forward, the Church’s defense would have crumbled. Like other victims, he probably was not ready to have his experience reported on the news. That’s certainly understandable, but viewers are left guessing because the question was never asked, at least in the film.
Another angle that was totally underdeveloped in the documentary was the fact that Maskell had a brother in the Baltimore Police Department. The film mentions this in passing 2-3 times but always breezes right along. That was very odd. Is Maskell’s brother alive? If so, was there any attempt to interview him? What rank did he attain before he retired or died? Several Baltimore cops were interviewed but no questions about Maskell’s brother on the force? That was peculiar.
The film reports that the Church sent Maskell and other priests to a place called the Institute for Living. One of the counselors/therapists who worked there explains that the Church would tell the Institute a priest was suffering from “depression,” but that the priest would say he was sent there because he had sex with a minor and the Church was worried about the incident coming to light. The film is unclear about whether that priest was Maskell or another priest. In any event, this is another discrepancy with the Church’s claim that it had no knowledge of sex abuse by priests. This is because, as the film relates, the Institute declined to take on more patient-priests unless the Church would provide the real reasons behind the referral. Either the filmmakers didn’t press the Church on this point with written questions at the end, or they didn’t include it in the film for some reason.
One of the infuriating aspects of the scandal is the incompetence or corruption found in the investigative authorities. Here are a few examples. First, Sharon May was the prosecutor in charge of the Sex Offender Unit. She appears in the film to defend her conduct while in office. Over and over again, she repeats her point that to prevail in court a prosecutor must have sufficient proof. But her defense is pathetic because the film shows that she was either unable or unwilling to do any investigative work to gather evidence and build a case against Maskell and others. Police found boxes and boxes of records that Maskell had buried in a cemetery and Sharon May essentially folds her arms and declares “That’s just not enough! I can’t go to court with that.” Pathetic. Law school students could have done much better than May.
Second, it is also evident that there is much tension between the police working for Baltimore County and those working for Baltimore City. Both agencies were working on the murder of Sister Cathy Cesnik. Gary Childs, a cold case detective with the County is interviewed toward the end of the documentary and he has to stop the interview to call the City police about a letter from Cesnik that was received after she went missing. Childs seems to know a few things about the letter, but has never read its contents and is unsure who has the letter now. He seems to be getting the runaround from the City (i.e. perhaps something like, ‘we had the letter but it is no longer in the file,’ or whatever) but is unwilling to call his counterparts out on it.
The police keep saying the investigations are “on-going” as if they’ve been working very hard but it is apparent that the police are mainly concerned about how the documentary is going to make them appear to the public. The Cesnik case is 50 years old and the police only recently exhumed the body of Maskell to gather his DNA to run tests against other evidence at the crime scene. What a coincidence that the police have exhumed the body just when the makers of “The Keepers” appear in Baltimore interviewing witnesses and asking lots of questions about the case!
The FBI cultivates an image of being the “premier” investigative agency in the world, but that’s simply good public relations. As the documentary shows, the Bureau has completely failed the Malecki family. Joyce Malecki’s body was found near a military base so the FBI took the lead on the matter. County investigators backed off and deferred to the Bureau. Now there’s finger-pointing between the agencies: The FBI says it determined that Malecki’s murder had no connection to the military base and turned the matter over to the county. The county says the case was never surrendered by the Bureau so it took virtually no action on the murder case. Even after several decades, Bureau officials have declined to release some 4,000 pages of documents it has on the case. And, incredibly, the Bureau told the Malecki family that even though it has fingerprint and DNA evidence from the crime scene, it didn’t have enough staff and budget to run that evidence against existing databases. What?!
Toward the end of the documentary, the dogged amateur sleuths, Gemma and Abbie, zero in on a few suspects who may have played a part in the murder of Cathy Cesnik. Brian Schmidt, now deceased, gave a recorded interview to Alan Horn where he divulged that he was around the men who did it when he was around 10-12 years old. Although the men tried to keep him distracted and in the dark about what they were up to, Brian is pretty confident that he pieced it all together afterwards. Brian identifies his Uncle Billy (Schmidt) and his friend “Skippy,” as having moved Cathy’s body from the apartment complex to the property near the family business. Brian identifies another man, his “Uncle Bobby,” who was tasked with keeping Brian distracted in the woods while the other men carried Cathy’s body from the car trunk to a spot in the woods.
The odd thing is that the film breezes right along without following up on Brian’s mention of an “Uncle Bobby.” We hear much about Uncle Billy and his eventual suicide. We hear some stories about Skippy and how he seemed to disappear. Why not more about Uncle Bobby? What’s his full name? Is he still alive? Maskell introduced Jean to a man he called “Brother Bob.” And Brother Bob told Jean that he killed Cathy. An obvious question is whether Uncle Bobby is also Brother Bob. It is peculiar that the film doesn’t tell us more about all this. For example, Jean recalls some identifying marks on Brother Bob’s torso so one is left wondering whether anyone in the Schmidt family can confirm or dispel those marks about Uncle Bob.
“The Keepers” is a terrific but heartbreaking documentary. Let’s hope that it generates more pressure on the obstinate law enforcement agencies to uncover the full and complete story.