By adamg on Tue., 4/22/2008 - 10:46 am
OK, maybe I'm not cut out to write headlines for Channel 7. Still, will be interesting to see how they play the case of their general manager, whom the Herald reports was arrested at Logan for "unruly behavior." She says a male passenger on her inbound flight tried to fondle her and that she got upset when the flight attendant told her to "calm down." One thing led to another and State Police wound up cuffing her on the ground.
The Globe paints a slightly different picture, one involving an out-of-control angry drunk threatening a trooper's job.
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I am on her side
By Rhea
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 11:44am
If she was indeed inappropriately touched by a guy on the plane, then she deserves every second of her 'unruly behavior'. I would have had a fit, too. It's not a funny situation. It can be terrifying.
You're quite right
By adamg
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 11:57am
At the same time, it's always interesting to watch how a media outlet covers something it might devote screaming headlines to if it happened to somebody outside that organization.
Me Too
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 12:00pm
Airlines are now being sued over their failure to protect passengers from other passengers. They have a HUGE incentive to pretend that it doesn't happen. Ergo, they have a huge incentive to prevent incidents from becoming public, then playing it out as an "unruly (implied drunk) passenger acted out, no perv attacks here" incident rather than nailing the perv and admitting the problem.
try reading the globe story
By Brett
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 12:54pm
She was completely sloshed, threatened the cop (from the sounds of it, you think "girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do" is as acceptable as "boys will be boys"?), then when she realized she was in deep trouble, she tried to bribe the cop with sex:
Fanny Covering
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 12:58pm
See below. Cops never "testa-lie" either.
OMG
By John K
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 8:30pm
OMG, you have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!
I think I'd like the full story first.
By Not a Teetotaler
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 12:39pm
I'm not saying that the alleged inappropriate touching didn't happen, but there are way too many discrepancies between the Herald account and [url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200... Globe's article[/url], which quotes the police report and says Ms. Goldclank may have been seriously inebriated and/or under the influence of prescription meds.
"...According to the report, she was overheard by police telling medical personnel that she had had "about three dozen drinks." Goldklank smelled of alcohol and was so intoxicated that police had difficulty booking her, the report stated....A State Police form called an alcohol influence report described her as disorderly, argumentative, and unsteady on her feet. Troopers overheard Goldklank tell paramedics that she was depressed because her mother had recently died, and that she had been taking Lexapro, an antidepressant."
According to what report?
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 12:54pm
If it ain't a toxicology report, I'm not going to put much faith in it. "she said this or that" is something I won't buy because the airlines and the police involved have way too much behavior of their own to "justify" at this point.
Again, airlines are getting sued for this sort of BS now and they have reason to pretend that pervs don't happen. Unless they can show a valid written plan of action that flight crews are trained to follow when passengers complain of physical harassment, and can show that their plan was followed, they are not credible.
Since when does taking antidepressants make it okay to arrest someone because they get upset because flight attendants refuse to do their jobs?
Um, did you read the Globe article?
By Not a Teetotaler
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 12:57pm
Follow the link to the Boston Globe article in the previous post. Read the article. It quotes the _police_ report. This is about more than alleged "pervs."
Yes, I did
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:01pm
The words "resisting arrest" automatically void anything further that is reported to have happened by other than disinterested bystanders and toxicology reports.
If she really was that intoxicated, as the cops make her out to be, and using prescription medication with known negative interactions, why wasn't she taken to Mass General???
Either she wasn't that drunk, or the cops got lucky she didn't die in cuffs.
swrrrly "grrl" doesn't read the articles...
By Brett
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:07pm
...because she already knows everything.
Seriously, I got tired of her posts in stories I wrote where I'd link to stuff to back my statements, and she'd ignore key facts in her argument.
This is why we need two newspapers in our city
By Ron Newman
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:09pm
I have no idea which report is correct (if either), but isn't it nice to have more than one point of view?
The Fact Is
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:13pm
You are either this type of perv and enjoys your immunity, are not a woman, and don't know any women.
This shit is called bullying, and it is time for the airlines to stop covering for it. There is currently a lawsuit where it went way over this, and the flight attendents followed the same "ignore the passenger - blame the passenger for being upset - etc." protocol despite genetic evidence of attack.
When you have to put up with a society that attacks you for defending yourself as "a troublemaker" then I might just pay some attention to your "key
fabricationsfacts".Assumes facts not (yet) in evidence
By Ron Newman
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:15pm
I'm loath to take either side until the conflicting accounts are somehow reconciled. It is quite possible that she was fondled AND that she was roaring drunk and out of control.
Perhaps both, perhaps ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:23pm
If she was that drunk, and said she took an anti depressant with known adverse interactivity with ethanol, she should have been hospitalized as a precaution. By their own description, they were negligent if they did not do so immediately (unknown if they did or did not).
If she was not as drunk as they say, there might be some ass covering exaggeration here.
In either case, patronizing those who question the Globe or the cops won't cut it.
In either case, patronizing
By anon-o-mus
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:34pm
But patronizing those who question anything else is just dandy? Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing.
Damned if you do
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:58pm
Damned if you don't.
One thing Swirly is consistent about: whatever it is, it's always the cops' fault.
Didn't put her in the hospital? Cop's fault. - they should have been able to diagnose her as needy rather than abusive.
Arrested her for assault? Cops' fault - they should have thanked her for hitting them and breaking their glasses.
Three troopers had to restrain her? Cops' fault - if they're not strong enough to...
Something weird about cops and the Swirly - makes her go all non-linear.
Rowdy Randi Goldklank was “cocky, combative, argumentative, staggering, thick tongued, unsteady and extreme,â€
Right... cops' fault!
If the best defense
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:02pm
Is a good offense, then Rowdy Randi Goldklank has a winning strategy.
“Leave me alone, do you know who the (expletive) I am?â€
I’m a bigshot in Boston and I’ll have your (expletive) jobs, you think your a (expletive) tough guy, you just watch and see what the (expletive) happens to you when I get the (expletive) out of here,â€
Swirly has a good offense too. Brett, you're a PERV! (No word on whether you can smell booze on Swirly's breath).
Explain
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:10pm
A friend of mine witnessed John Silber throw a similar sort of tirade at a gate agent because of a snowed out flight.
Why isn't he in jail?
What about Mike "that guy has a bomb" Dukakis?
I have no idea what you're talking about
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:15pm
If John Silber threw a similar tirade and assaulted a police officer, then he should clearly have been arrested as well. What's your point?
Yeah, so much incentive to lie
By Kaz
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:07pm
I can totally see it now. The cops showed up and gave a little wink-nod to the airline employees who all then started their usual cabal against Ms. Goldklank. The cop then breaks his own glasses and walks over to the EMTs to make sure they're also on the same page, wink, wink. Then, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones roll in in black suits and mind-wipe everyone on the plane, in the terminal, and anywhere else that might have been witness to the incident and tell them the "real story" of how Ms. Goldklank was mistreated so that nobody will ever come forward and refute the cops or the airline's stories.
Hell, they just put it all in a police report and will likely use it as testimony should this ever reach a criminal court...but they're just praying and praying nobody comes forward to point out that she wasn't drunk and the cops beat her silly while she was on the ground getting tasered.
That's what you mean? Right, Swirly?
Sometimes you're a real trip to read.
Resisting Arrest
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:14pm
Again, explain how she was soooo drunk that xyz, was soooo out of control that zyx ... and "she said she took medication" are offered up to the media, yet it does not appear that she was given any medical attention.(either that, or they have not provided that information).
Either they are exaggerating to justify her arrest, or they are lucky she didn't decompensate in custody. Which is it? They are either blowing things up, or ignoring a medical emergency if you take their words at face value.
It will be interesting to see how the fan spins when the tox reports arrive.
Didn't you say you lived in Berkeley for a while?
By stephencaldwell
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:18pm
She was given medical attention according to the police report.
boston.com/news/daily/22/goldklank2.jpg
That does make sense
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:33pm
The papers didn't offer that key piece, just skipped over it and on to the extreme stuff. It would have been a huge hole in the whole "out of control" thing - anybody who was that extremely out of it is pretty toxic.
You too, Stephen??
By Kaz
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:37pm
OMG, the pervs are out in force today!
For shame that you suggest Swirly is wrong!
Never you mind that there's a mention in every news story on this issue that EMTs were involved, which is how anyone found out about her self-claimed "three dozen drinks" and Lexapro anti-depressant and recently deceased mother.
Clearly, the cops didn't do anything for her medical situation.
So, what's next Swirly?
Anyone question why the cops didn't try to arrest this supposed groper? Maybe they knew him and so they were actively working to keep his name out of the press. He must be bigger and more important in the city than even the GM of WHDH!
You'll probably think I'm a PERV
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:56pm
But if she had "three dozen drinks," then she probably couldn't tell the groper from Adam.
I wouldn't be surprised if
By stephencaldwell
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:59pm
I wouldn't be surprised if she just sat on her own hand...
Medical emergency?
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:22pm
Has anybody besides yourself suggested she was in any kind of medical emergency besides being two sheets to the wind?
Is there some secret knowledge of her medical condition that you and only you possess?
This whole non-linear thing is so strange. On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that the cops must be lying about the degree of outrageousness of her behavior (and should never have arrested her in the first place), and on the other you argue that if she was truly that outrageous (i.e. if you're wrong about your first argument), then she must ipso facto have been in some sort of medical crisis (and therefore the cops did something else wrong, not sending her to a hospital).
Isn't another, much simpler possibility that she was drunk and just being an abusive asshole? (And that the cops did the exact right thing).
Overdose/drug interaction
By Ron Newman
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:34pm
The suspect said she combined drugs in a manner that is not advised. That deserves medical attention, which seems to have been provided.
"Secret" Knowledge
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:37pm
I just took pathophysiology at Harvard Medical School, as well as numerous certifications for CPR/First Aid Instructor while in the Navy.
So I not only know the internal stuff, I taught other people, starting when I turned 18, how to know the difference between drunk asshole and drunk asshole in serious mortal peril.
Did they teach you the difference
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 3:09pm
Between hands-on diagnosis and over-the-horizon speculation?
Because the police, who also have some medical training, were there, and you weren't.
Whatever information the police had to work on, you have less. Your Harvard kung fu doesn't make up for the fact that you have no idea what actually went on besides what somebody tells you.
Whatever information the police had to work on, you have less.
By Anonymous
Thu, 04/24/2008 - 12:18am
Before you pass judgment, remember the Duke Lacrosse case. If you're like me, you were ready to believe the three lacrosse players raped the stripper. It didn't happen. The lesson is that newspapers don't always get it right and authorities are not always trustworthy sources.
Gareth's argument is a fallacy. He argues Swirlygrrl must be wrong because the police on the scene have comparable training about drug effects plus first-hand observation.
The psycho-pharmacological training of the police is not a fact in evidence. It's an assumption. I find Swirrlygirl's expertise compelling and relevant. Point me to a state cop with his MPH, training in psychopharmacology and teaching experience at Harvard in the same subject and then maybe I could agree with the point.
"Your Harvard kung fu doesn't make up for the fact that you have no idea what actually went on besides what somebody tells you."
Impugning her expertise doesn't strengthen the argument. It is a distraction that illustrates an inability to argue the issue on the merits.
Swirlly may or may not be jumping to the correct conclusion about this women being pissed off about being groped but I'll give her her due on her assessment of her state of mind and I'll be the first (actually the second) to question what actually happened on the plane.
Apparently I'm not like you
By Gareth
Thu, 04/24/2008 - 4:40am
The Duke case stank to high heaven from the get-go, and I was appalled at the public pillorying of those fellows. I'm not surprised you were taken in, but your gullibility is not a good reason to disbelieve everything you read.
If you're going to play the logic game, then you should probably play the reading game too. If you played the reading game, then you would know that the Amazing Randi received medical attention by paramedics at the station. I think it's pretty patent that paramedics are better-trained medical professionals than our friendly neighborhood public health statistician, and the value of a diagnosis by medical professionals with actual access to the patient is better than the theory of a layperson who's never even met the individual.
I know there are more among us who assume that something is wrong just because the police say it, but that's really not a great basis for an argument - especially in the face of further facts.
the only guy in America beside Mike Pressler
By Anonymous
Thu, 04/24/2008 - 1:28pm
oh you knew they - Duke Lacrosse players - were not guilty? what did you see that made you believe that?
You argued Swirrly's lack of first hand observation disqualified her judgment. I disagreed. Call it the reading game or the logic game but admit you're criticism of her main assertion was based on an objection to an "over the horizon" diagnosis, which is opportunity to verify (or contradict) behavior reported in the article.
Huh?
By Gareth
Thu, 04/24/2008 - 1:38pm
I think I lost you on the last bend. What's an opportunity for wha?
Swirly wanted to second-guess the cops based on the theory that her Harvard courses made her a better judge of the woman's physical state than the police (and paramedics) who actually saw her. I think that's silly. I also have observed from many previous posts that she has a knee-jerk negative reaction to police. Any time you say "policeman" around here, she gets up on her soapbox. I have a lot of sympathy for policemen, who have a harder job than mine (or Swirly's), and so I tend to defend them.
The reason I suspected the Duke Lacrosse players were being railroaded was that so many articles were clearly biased presentations of opinion masquerading as fact. Also, the facts didn't mesh with the allegations from day one. I'm sorry you couldn't smell the bullshit. Were you taken in by the Bush war too?
Don't forget lead paint. She
By stephencaldwell
Thu, 04/24/2008 - 1:40pm
Don't forget lead paint.
She goes from Swirly to Frothy quite quickly when that issue arises.
The article does say she talked to paramedics...
By Mary Ellen
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 4:02pm
... who were presumably examining her at the time. So, she did get at least some sort of medical attention.
Ah, sweet irony!
By oddjob60
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:18pm
All questions about what really happened aside, I loved this bit from the Globe:
If only the media would extend the same courtesy to other accused perpetrators.
when Channel 7 DOES cover it...
By anon
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 1:38pm
"Klank in the Tank!"
"Klank in the Clink"!
By oddjob60
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:31pm
"Klank in the Clink"!
Channel 7 usually alliterates its stories, so....
By anon
Wed, 04/23/2008 - 12:56pm
Flight Fondling!
Mid-air Mashing!
Logan Lush
I care a lot more about this
By anon
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:27pm
I care a lot more about this story:
boston.com...woes_in_citys_disability_system
Send it to Seven!
By Kaz
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:31pm
Every major news outlet in Boston has covered the beginning of this story...except WHDH.
I was concerned that they may have somehow missed this when it hit the fan, so I made sure to Send It To Seven, where they accept any news story you might want them to know about (you know, so they can be really lazy about "getting" "news").
I hope that helped them out!
Nice going!
By Eighthman
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 4:30pm
Looks like it helped to let them know:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO77039/
Wow!
By Kaz
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 9:09pm
I never would have believed that they'd even acknowledge it. Hehe. I wonder if my prodding did it or if it was just a matter of internal review that finally led to announcing their course of action with her.
Two contradictory accounts
By Gary McGath
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:42pm
We have two accounts which are contradictory on many points. I don't know which to believe; quite a few people commenting here do, and I really doubt that all of them were there. But I'm inclined to view the claims of the police skeptically. I recall previous incidents where the cops have tried to invent a mysterious, threatening device out of electronics people were carrying. I recall a recent account on a newspaper website in another city in which police tried to justify an arrest with clear falsehoods (they contradicted a widely circulated video) and the newspaper's web page unquestioningly reported the lies.
Maybe the police are telling the truth this time. But I'm not assuming they are.
The difference
By Kaz
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 3:04pm
Here's the thing: The police are idiots when it comes to IEDs because most of them have probably never seen an improvised bomb OR a Mooninite OR an MIT student's lite-brite shirt. The police have definitely seen obnoxious drunks before.
Good point
By Gareth
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 3:06pm
I'd say if there's one thing the cops are experts in, it's obnoxious drunks.
He looked in her purse?
By oddjob60
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:47pm
Another interesting moment from the report. After he says she wouldn't identify herself, the officer says:
I mean, is refusing to show ID enough cause for him to go looking for it inside a purse? I bet there's a lawyer who knows...
Searching her purse for
By stephencaldwell
Tue, 04/22/2008 - 2:58pm
Searching her purse for identification is kind of irrelevant to the incident at hand. While it may or may not have been legal at the time, if the only thing he ascertained by searching her purse was her identity and it's something that was going to be inevitably discovered then nothing was truly gained by the search. If he had found something else (controlled substances for example), however, and arrested her for the drugs prior to her striking the officer then that would probably be thrown out as a result of the search being illegal.
But then again, IANAL, and I'm only speculating based on my limited understanding of the 4th amendment.
Pages