ACM Logo  An ACM Publication  |  CONTRIBUTE  |  FOLLOW    

Five Questions for Michelle Cardinal

By Lisa Gualtieri / June 2009

Print Email
Comments (5) Instapaper

Error 526 Ray ID: 4796e0297f3f91b8 • 2018-11-14 04:53:39 UTC

Invalid SSL certificate








What happened?

The origin web server does not have a valid SSL certificate.

What can I do?

If you're a visitor of this website:

Please try again in a few minutes.

If you're the owner of this website:

The SSL certificate presented by the server did not pass validation. This could indicate an expired SSL certificate or a certificate that does not include the requested domain name. Please contact your hosting provider to ensure that an up-to-date and valid SSL certificate issued by a Certificate Authority is configured for this domain name on the origin server. Additional troubleshooting information here.


  • Wed, 01 Jul 2009
    Post by Ludo Van Vooren

    Twitter can be great at a conference. I would encourage any organizer to establish and promote a #tag for their event well ahead of time. I was recently hired by an association to organize and cover their conference on Twitter and many attendees found great benefits from it. Beyond their contributions and comments, the twitter stream became a "common" set of notes they could use after the event. I was doing stream augmentation from the back of the room, posting links and additional data for each presentation being made (e.g. link to amazon for books mentioned by the speaker). I was also solliciting questions from people not present at the event and relaying them to the speakers. Finally, I posted text and video recaps after each day on the conference blog. This is definitely a new way of conducting events and it is great!

  • Sat, 21 Mar 2009
    Post by marieclaire

    Hard to believe her clinical supervisors were unaware of the fact that she was practicing without a license. As far as I know, professional ethics holds supervisors responsible for the well-being of the supervisees'' clients. Did this not come up during the trial? MC

  • Wed, 12 Mar 2008
    Post by IV

    Forget all the support for Ms. Wightman. She did not meet the requirements set forth by the commonwealth. End of story. If you call yourself a psychologist, you must meet the minimum legal requirements in doing so. She failed to do that. The stripper part did not play any role in her conviction, it only titillated the public''s perverse interest in sex scandals (see Elliot Spitzer). Otherwise, have no sympathy for this woman''s conviction. I should add that the loss of her daughter in a car crash was an unrelated and tragic incident that happened to occur in the interim between her indictment and her trial. For this, it is OK to have much sympathy; but when you break the law and practice healing arts without a license, you should expect this kind of public reaction and reprimand.

  • Wed, 23 May 2007
    Post by George

    The possibilities are endless. Fact is - Ms. WIghtman testified on her own behalf, under oath. She was the only witness for her defense to speak of. The prosecution did not allow for much else. Not once was she tripped up on cross - she was telling the truth which was obvious to us and to the jury. This is why she was found not guilty on the weightiest charges. I should re-write this as she was NOT GUILTY on the WEIGHTIEST CHARGES. The coloring from her past colors how we fill in the gaps to the story. Her testimony was not found to be in contempt. You must let it stand on its own. Ms. Wightman stated she was working in a small private practice under the supervision of several licensed individuals to include Robert Fox LICSW and Karen Beason Patrick, a licensed psychologist with whom she formed a business, who was also a graduate of MSPP. Ms. Wightman further states that she was trying to finish her dissertation, had collected ALL of the data and had completed ALL of her coursework (yes it was admitted into evidence), and was railroaded, caught off guard, when she was confronted with being in private practice and as having been a stripper - the conclusion was made that she was therefore being sexually inappropriate with patients! She had to sit in a room with seven "psychologists" or people in the "helping profession" who were nothing short of humiliating. She was not the only person in the school to have a private practice. In fact, she mentioned a Danielle Detorra from Stow, Massachusetts, who was also being supervised by Karen Patrick, and who was STILL working as a stripper in Providence. Wightman had allegedly guided her so she could pay her tuition bills. She was not harassed. In listening to Norbett Mintz, Wightman''s advisor, on the stand, he contradicted himself blatantly! Maybe if Wightman had a more experienced attorney the Commonwealth''s witnesses could have been shown more obviously to not be telling the truth. The story is far from over, and is less about one woman than it is about human behavior, scapegoating and cultural norms and assumptions, not to mention the politcal process.

  • Tue, 22 May 2007
    Post by Lesa Huber

    That was hilarious, Lisa. Do you think these people have a "they''ll never check my degree out" attitude? I just had to go through a re-application for my own job this spring. (Good news, I''m still employed) But I was surprised to see a line on the application stating that my credentials would be checked out. I had never seen that before. It''s been over 10 years since I technically applied for a job, so perhaps this group was similarly unaware that credential checking is a new reality. Or maybe they really are just that stupid. Very enjoyable column! Lesa