My Thoughts: MacKenzie Philips

Mackenzie Philips
MacKenzie Philips, 1999

I have to say that when I first heard MacKenzie Philip’s story on Oprah, I was drawn in, perhaps, by the shock value. But as I thought about what she said, I’ve become conflicted. I think it could be because Philips is sending mixed messages about her father. She wants us to see him as a rapist and a perpetrator, abusing his “power” as a father, yet at the same time she truly tells us she loves him and she gets a glow in her eyes when she talks about him. She says her dad was an incredible person, and his demons shouldn’t affect our image of him. And in a very strange twist, she tells us she never worried about her younger sister, who lived with him, being abused by him. Was she and is she that disconnected, still?

Read moreWhen you absorb it all, she talks out of both sides of her mouth. Then she rationalizes perhaps this is due to Stockholm Syndrome (where the victim sympathizes with their perpetrator).

I honestly don’t know what to think.

Philips emotions go all over the chart, which is neither consistent or inconsistent with her message, because logically such a tumultuous life could cause someone to be very ungrounded, if they’ve never dealt with it. And it appears from all Philips is saying, she still hasn’t dealt with anything. She is just writing her story in a book, which makes me wonder what her motivations are for this.

Is she writing this book to help people? If so, you’d expect her to say she is donating the proceeds to help other women, but when Oprah asked her why she wrote this, her answer seemed to come off the top of her tongue, which concerns me, knowing Philips has struggled her entire life with addiction. I don’t know her financial state, but did she do this because she needs the money? Money motivates people to do things they normally wouldn’t do.

If she was truly on a healing path, I would have expected her to help us understand why she did what she did. Why did she stick around after she felt she was raped? She was an adult and could leave. She never confessed to this, at least not on TV. Maybe she does in her book?

Was it the lure of the rich life and drugs? Is she not able to talk about her addiction to drugs yet on any serious level? If she truly wanted to help people, wouldn’t she want to talk about the ravages of addiction, too, if she was on a healing path? She didn’t talk about any of this on TV, which causes me concern.

All in all, I wonder if I am confused, because if this were, let’s say a lie, would this be high-stakes? I mean who could prove or disprove that these two had a consenting sexual relationship? Could anyone outside of Philips or her father, who is now deceased, prove the truth?

Theoretically, she could create or embellish this story and sell it, cash in big, because she knows no one could prove or disprove anything. Yet some people are supporting her, which makes me think perhaps she is honest. One of her father’s band member’s daugther says her father knew. But then why didn’t he feel morally obligated to help “Mac”? If others knew, why didn’t they draw the line? I know many people suffer from incest in their families and it is no doubt a horrible experience many people will relate too.

I keep hearing “Mac” say that her father told her, “A lie will serve you better than the truth.”

On the Today Show, she says she was 18 when she was raped. On Oprah, she said she was 19.

Then I think, “‘Mac’ look clean in her recent interviews.”

I’m all over the place.

When I watched her on the Today Show, which aired the day after Oprah, this morning, I got an uneasy feeling again. I guess I am not willing to come to any conclusions at this point. Perhaps it is because her life has been tragic enough, I just don’t want to go there. But when I start to think that, I think how could anyone come out normal in the world she lived in ? My goodness, her life was hell and you can’t blame her for it–at least in the early years.

This story is so out there that even I can’t put my finger on it with any certainty, which if you are a regular reader of mine, you know this is VERY RARE. My opinion changes minute to minute. I will simply say, may she find peace and may she truly find a “healing path”.

Misty Skips Town?

Facial Expressions are Innate

Louis Ross Interview

When I watch Louis Ross talk, the first thing that jumps out at me is how calm and controlled his demeanor is considering the circumstances. The second thing I notice is how long and detailed his first answer is to the question asked by the reporter, “So walk me through the day that Hassani disappeared…”

Read moreLouis gives so many details, its mind-boggling for me. I can appreciate being precise, but isn’t the point to get the information out about Hassani and to find him? I find Ross’ focus is off. Why isn’t he most focused on finding Hassini, instead of explaining himself here? Why is he telling us what he “always” did, instead of just what happened that day?

I also see no urgency or anxiety from either foster parent that Hassani needs to be found. This is the biggest red flag for me. This is unnerving, because we all know time is of the essence, if Hassani truly wandered off or was abducted.

Also, when Louis recalls the time that they realize Hassani is gone, his face is devoid of any emotional stress, concern or fear. This is a huge red flag. This should have been a difficult time emotionally, if this is what happened, but I see no supportive emotions whatsoever here. It deeply concerns me.

I find Louis’ statement, “I automatically know we have a problem because Hassani does not walk away” disconcerting. First, he tells us that Hassani can walk to the back door without him, without a problem, so how can he say that Hassani doesn’t walk away? It’s flat out inconsistent.

Furthermore, most people don’t jump to the instant conclusion after only a couple of minutes that something tragic happened to their child when they don’t immediately see them. Any logical person would just assume Hassani was simply hiding behind the garbage dumpster or something, and would likely call out for him, but this is not what Louis thought at the time. His behavior is indicative he knows that Hassani was not there.

Louis says, “…and I took out the back door…to go look for my so.., well, I actually went to my car to my phone and called police…”

This statement is interesting above. He starts out with a story and then tells us the truth. Why didn’t he look for Hassani more? This perplexes me. He thinks about it, but he didn’t do it? This is notably odd.

Louis continues on rambling about how he doesn’t take the kids through the store. Where is his focus to find Hassani? It seems this is more about him than Hassani. This bothers me.

Louis says, “When I didn’t see him there, I was like he doesn’t walk away.” People who are victims of a situation like this are open to entertaining multiple scenarios. They don’t just jump to one conclusion –especially the most tragic, unless they are forced to do so. They explore everything else first. Why does Louis only accept one possibility?

It isn’t until the six minute mark that Louis starts talking about the most important thing they want to get out into the media, “Our son does not wear leg braces and this is the most frustrating part, because we all know we have a small window of time…” When Louis says this, notice there is no anxiety or urgency to help find Hassani?

Also notice that they don’t have any photos or fliers of him? There is just this resolve, as if they know what happened to him that I can’t explain. Perhaps it is the lack of emotional support for what they are saying.

Louis then says, “Does he need them [leg braces] to walk? No. They are there to help his feet develop.” Then why didn’t he wonder if Hassani could have walked away, or played hide and seek that day? Louis is very inconsistent.

Louis says “We invited you to our home so you can get the correct information out to the public.” Notice he doesn’t say, “We invited you to our home so you can help us find Hassani.” This troubles me.

Louis says, “If some…if the person who…….if someone took our son……or didn’t take him and he just wandered somewhere, and you took him, just return him. He probably won’t remember you, just don’t hurt him.”

Why doesn’t Louis look at the camera when he says this statement above? It’s as if Louis doesn’t believe what he is saying here… Also, now, notice how he entertains that Hassani could have just “wandered somewhere”. This is very inconsistent from what he has suggested earlier. Louis seems to change his tune as the wind blows and says whatever is convenient at the time.

A couple of minutes later Louis says, “Do I feel responsible for this? Yes.” You can see true pain when he says this. Why on earth, if he is innocent, would he feel responsible if Hassani wandered off or was kidnapped? This is very notable, and strange and unusual.

He continues, “There are parents out there, they take it for granted, ‘Oh that’ll never happen to me,’ only a few minutes, a quick second (expression of disgust followed by contempt)…turn your back, they’re gone.” I can’t help but wonder if he is thinking back to another memory here and at the pause, he thinks and changes the end of his sentence!

I personally don’t believe Louis is telling us what he knows to be the truth. I hope I am wrong for Hassani’s sake…