Princess Cheyenne, stripper, ALLEGEDLY practiced as unlicensed psychologist

363 Responses to “Princess Cheyenne, stripper, ALLEGEDLY practiced as unlicensed psychologist”

1. 1Lucy Wightman on Oct 9, 2005 at 12:52 pm:

   There is so much to this story that has not yet been told.

2. 2Ken on Oct 9, 2005 at 10:55 pm:

   Well I am only sharing the info not accusing. What else is there that’s not been said in the papers?
   I believe most people will read into this to find out how a dancer became a psychologist.

   Others will want to know how does someone who councels people with her sexuality switch to wanting to help others using the practice of Psychology.
   Care to share?

3. 3Lucy Wightman on Oct 10, 2005 at 10:47 am:

   I do understand that you were not accusing. I like your thoughts on what others may want to know and only wish that it was this neutral curiousity I was dealing with rather than such hostility

4. 4Susan Ovans on Oct 10, 2005 at 3:37 pm:

   I am trying to reach Lucy Wightman for a story we are running this week about the indictment. Since your number is unlisted, Ms. Wightman, please call me at 781 925 9266. Thanks for your time. Susan Ovans, Editor

5. 5Susan Ovans on Oct 10, 2005 at 3:38 pm:

   Sorry, I should have included the name of the paper: It’s The Hull Times. Thanks.

6. 6Ken on Oct 10, 2005 at 4:44 pm:

   Lucy, I’m sure you’re going to get solicitations from all over. You’re anonymous enough here that you can speak freely about your situation. Please share for the other people who’s curiosity has been piqued. Maybe we can help.
   This would NOT have been a blip on the press radar if the “Princess Cheyenne” part of the story was left out.

7. 7Lucy Wightman on Oct 10, 2005 at 6:58 pm:

   I agree Ken about being a blip on the radar - what happens if we google Lucy Wightman? Thank you for your posting.

8. 8Lucy Wightman on Oct 10, 2005 at 9:34 pm:

   I would like to respond to your first question by sharing the first part of this storyline which is that in November of 2004 I received 3 emails from unknown AOL screen names threatening to go to Fox 25 and expose my past… and to go to the AG’s office since I used a business name with the word “psychology” in it… and to also warn me of leaving the office at night.

9. 9Susan Ovans on Oct 10, 2005 at 10:16 pm:

   Actually, I did find this site, among many others, by using Google for “Louise Wightman”. The “blip” on my hometown paper’s radar screen was not the Princess Cheyenne tagline, but a press statement from the Attorney General’s office that a local resident had been indicted. They do it all the time. In fact, the day before we had been notified by Reilly’s office about a local contractor who had been fined for failing to clean up an environmentally sensitive site. Don’t you think it’s kind of ironic, Ken, that you’re assuring Ms. Wightman that you’re oh-so-sensitive to her situation when, in fact, you’re the one who posted the headline “Princess Cheyenne, stripper, practiced as unlicensed psychologist” and are urging her to “bare all,” so to speak, for your readers? I put out my name and the name of my paper on your blog because I think it’s only fair to use as many sources as I can to give Ms. Wightman an opportunity to make a statement, if she so chooses, particularly since she lives in this small town. Whether she chooses to respond, or not, I can assure her that she needn’t lose any sleep thinking that, come Friday morning, her hometown weekly will have posted such a crass headline.

10. 10Ken on Oct 11, 2005 at 4:44 am:

    When I first read about this story it was online and to be honest “stripper turned psychologist” is what attracted me to read more.
    I learned that Lucy had a very interesting past with celebrities, media, Playboy, bodybuilding and now as a Psychotherapist.
    I just hate how the “extreme” and “shock” news sources want to take a story and bust it all apart and get some credit for doing it. I had Fox25 at my house for an incident this past Christmas Eve and they stayed for hours reporting on how we were driven out of our home due to a storm only to put a spin on some facts we gave them and make it look like Fox25 cares. Anything for Ratings!

    I’ve frequented strip clubs and I know how the public has an idea of the personality of the typical dancer. I found it interesting that Lucy Wightman seemed NOT the typical girl who only wants to get naked and party.

    To reply to your comment, Susan Ovans, I urge Lucy to get her side out to the public and let the public has its equal share of the story. I think talking to your paper would be a good thing and also I wouldn’t mind helping her out with maybe creating a website for her to document and tell her own side of things.
    In Lucy’s own words.

11. 11erin on Oct 11, 2005 at 12:54 pm:

    It seems to me, as I read all the comments, that Susan Owens is just trying to get an exclusive story. The way she is going about it is to put down this blogger for being curious and wanting to hear Lucy’s side of the story. She is trying to convince Lucy that she cares about her and how the story comes off when really, just like any other journalist, she would like to get the scoop first for her paper. Susan, you are very transparent. But that’s just my opinion.

12. 12Susan Ovans on Oct 11, 2005 at 2:02 pm:

    If I didn’t care about Ms. Wightman’s right to privacy, I would hop in my car, drive about five minutes, and go knock on her door and ask for a statement. This is a very small town and I’ve been a reporter here since 1979. I know where she lives. Transparency is not a bad thing, Erin. I’m trying to do my job in an ethical way and being fair to the subject of the story in trying to contact her for a comment without sticking my nose [and my camera] in her face. When I saw that she had responded to Ken’s postings, I thought perhaps it would be a way to let her know we were trying to reach her without being too invasive. But I guess that doesn’t fit your stereotype of “just like any other journalist”…

13. 13erin on Oct 11, 2005 at 2:17 pm:

    that’s all fine and good but you are putting down this website and it’s creator Ken for the tagline that was used. Did he know anything but what had already been written on this story before Lucy started commenting? No, probably not. So do you find it hard to beleive that he could now have compassion for this woman that he has exchanged comments with? He is also just putting it out there that if she wanted to tell her side of the story she is more than welcome to do it here. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but this isn’t some bigtime operation he has running here, it’s just somebody’s blogging site that you happened to find.

14. 14Lucy Wightman on Oct 11, 2005 at 5:53 pm:

    I am grateful to any other voices that speak to the many issues raised by recent events. There are layers upon layers of meaning and expressions of the way we exist together here in this world that come about from the components like… politics, objectification, first dibs/scoops, sensationalism, right to privacy, beastly media power, justice, but mostly care and love lost in empty disconnection.

15. 15Lucy Wightman on Oct 11, 2005 at 11:51 pm:

    and I wanted to respond to Susan by saying thank you for not showing up for a front door ambush as Channel 7 did (at which point Hull police did a respectful job moving them on and away - thank you, AND at which point a most compassionate and open minded neighbor brought me a scary mask and rainbow clown wig. I will be curious what the HEADLINE will read should you choose to report. I will be watching for it. Along the lines of your sensitivity, Susan, to privacy, what would you think if I told you that hundreds of past and present patients were COLD CALLED by the AG’s office (apparently they weren’t “flooded”)???

16. 16Ken on Oct 12, 2005 at 12:27 am:

    WOW the AG did that? How did they get their records and numbers?

    Lucy you gotta get your side of the story out to curious minds before this gets too warped.

    in my opinion

17. 17Al on Oct 12, 2005 at 8:25 am:

    That’s what I’d like to know. I find it incomprehensible that under the pretense of protecting the public, an institution can violate the public’s right to privacy so flagrantly. The Machiavellian tactics underscore the real intent and over arching agenda of this case. Is the state AG really protecting us or serving their own interests by dredging up yet another cheap morality play to be acted out on the 6 o’clock news and in the daily rags? I feel it’s the latter and once again our tax dollars are being spent to create a smoke screen; it’s a ruse to get politicians elected. Tom Reilly and the state AG certainly do benefit from all this publicity. But the whole story is indeed not being told. On the surface, Ken’s indictment above is so easy to get one’s mind around. It’s all packaged up and delivered to you in easily understandable terms. His assumption that all strippers use their sexuality in whatever they do, past present or future, and, moreover, draw all career and professional goals from that sexuality is precisely the assumption the media wants you to make. Because it sells papers and has the added boon of getting Reilly into another term as the moral defender of “family values.” It’s BS and it’s the only scam I can see being run in this whole damn story. Lucy is the real deal. It’s the taudry relationship politicians and the media have that is the scam. Susan, be a journalist now and not a newspaper reporter and get the *whole* story!

18. 18Ken on Oct 12, 2005 at 9:31 am:

    Wow Al you got deep there.

    Lucy you gotta come out with a book with your whole story in it. Post some of those bodybuilding pics in there too.
    If you tell the whole story then bust it WIDE OPEN.

19. 19Lucy Wightman on Oct 12, 2005 at 11:04 am:

    Al’s concise and pointed summary, while not “in my own words,” per se, is.

    Understandably I have to be cautious and as much as “busting it wide open” has been an urgent temptation from the start of all this, right now other’s voices mean more and keep me protected from what I as yet, cannot understand.

    I hope that the larger concerns and mysteries continue to spark dialogue here and as I can, while still taking care of myself, I will comment.

    Meanwhile it is Talbot’s or Ann Taylor for my day in court.

20. 20Ken on Oct 12, 2005 at 11:22 am:

    What is your court date?

21. 21Lucy Wightman on Oct 12, 2005 at 11:24 am:

    The 20th of October at Suffolk Superior

22. 22C~ on Oct 12, 2005 at 3:18 pm:

    Lucy is the real deal and I am behind her 100%.

    All that is happening is for the publicity of the AG’s office to get Reilly elected again…Frankly it makes me sick. Aren’t there “real” fights to fight out in this world that would really make a difference? Too bad the AG’s office doesn’t have a brain or a backbone to fight a real fight.

    On a side note, LW…I’d go to Ann Taylor!

23. 23Lucy Wightman on Oct 12, 2005 at 10:25 pm:

    thank you C~ and thank you Al for being supportive.

    How DID they get all those names and numbers??? The investigator told one woman “from your insurance company” !!!

    Hey!!! What happened to HIPAA??!!! All those forms we have to sign saying we read the reams of small print about our PRIVACY??? And the sharing of private information??? So I guess TUFTS must have let their guard down? Or was somebody being dishonest and MISREPRESENTING the TRUTH??

24. 24Fired Up on Oct 13, 2005 at 10:00 am:

    This whole thing has me so FIRED UP!!!! She was a stripper???? Say it isn’t so….
    Last time I checked we all have a past. It is very unfortunate that Lucy’s past is being brought up and as a result her name being dragged through the mud. I for one don’t give a rat’s a** about her past. What I know about Lucy Wightman is simply this. She goes above and beyond to help those who want to be helped. She put’s in 110% all day every day. She is kind, caring, and compassionate. She is a real person, who give’s great feedback. She is knowledgeable and witty. She is strong, and a true inspiration to me. She has shown me when the world throws lemons make lemonade. Maybe she should bring some lemonade to her court date and share some with those who are throwing the lemons???? Just a thought. This is a cruel world and it pisses me off that one of the good people in this world is being scrutinized and made out to be bad. I for one don’t get it. I do and will continue to stand by her all the way.

25. 25Al on Oct 13, 2005 at 10:42 am:

    Susan, I left you a message at the number above. The whole story is not being told. Be Tom Wolfe with me for a minute and see what this thread reveals.

26. 26Parental Input on Oct 13, 2005 at 12:53 pm:

    I have never submitted a blog entry before, being of the baby boomer generation it is a new concept. However, I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. My daughter has been a patient of Lucy’s for the past four years. She is one of the “children” with an eating disorder. In contrast to what the Boston Globe article implies, my daughter has been very much helped by Lucy. She has a clear understanding of who my daughter is and has been and continues to be a great help to her. One of the facts that the articles have conveniently left out is that Lucy completed four years of academic work in psychology at the doctoral level at the Massachuetts School Of Psychology When my husband and I interviewed Lucy, she was honest about what her schooling was and we accepted the fact that she was not licensed nor did she have a doctorate in psychology. There really are so many layers to this story that it is difficult to decide which to write about. There is way more to talk about but this is a start.

27. 27claire on Oct 13, 2005 at 3:55 pm:

    Can we get beyond the stripper and shady background of Lucy Wightman? We all have a history and can understand why she would want her past to be private. Let’s move onto the indictment charges. The issue here is fraudulant behavior. Ms. Wightman has been calling herself a doctor when she does not hold a valid phd (in psychology anyhow). She has been treating patients who have been told that she is a psychologistand has signed off on legal and insurance forms as holding a phd. Ms. Wightman purchased her “phd” from a diploma mill. Why is this? Something is not right. If you have all of the required course work and experience, then why not have a legal phd document from an accredited school? What’s the story?

28. 28Susan Ovans on Oct 13, 2005 at 8:19 pm:

    I told Al today that I would post my story on this site as soon as we went to press. So here it is. I also thought that doing so might assuage Ms. Wightman’s worry about what her hometown paper will say.

    Local resident charged with posing as a psychologist
    By Susan Ovans

    A Hull resident was indicted last week by a Suffolk Court grand jury on Attorney General Tom Reilly’s charges that she practiced as an unlicensed psychologist.
    Louise Wightman, also known as Lucy Wightman, 46, was charged with six counts each of filing false healthcare claims and insurance fraud, 26 counts of larceny over $250, and a single count of practicing psychology without a license. She will be arraigned on the charges Oct. 20 in Suffolk Superior Court.
    Massachusetts law requires that psychologists possess a doctoral degree in the field from a state-recognized program, and that they be licensed with the state Division of Professional Licensure. Wightman has never applied for nor received a license to practice as a psychologist, according to a statement released last Thursday by the AG’s office, although for five years she has owned 99-percent interest in a company called South Shore Psychology Associates, LLC.
    The company had offices in Hingham and, later, Norwell, and is currently named South Shore Psychotherapy Associates. Psychotherapists need not be licensed in Massachusetts.
    Wightman earned a bachelor’s degree from Emerson College and a master’s in counseling psychology from Lesley University. Although she reportedly completed several years of study toward a PhD at the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, she didn’t complete the program.
    The indictments allege that Wightman paid $1,299 to receive a doctoral degree in psychology from Republic of Dominica-based Concordia College & University, an online institution that is not recognized by the state of Massachusetts.
    Wightman and a former classmate formed South Shore Psychology Associates in 1998 and developed a patient base that specialized in children’s issues, particularly eating disorders among young women, but also dealt with adult issues like anger management and marriage counseling.
    The indictments allege that Wightman helped some patients obtain reimbursement for her services from six different health insurance providers by fraudulently representing herself as a psychologist and as possessing a psychology degree.
    The indictments further allege that Wightman stole money from 26 patients and their families by enlisting them to sign on as patients under the false belief that she was a licensed psychologist.
    Wightman’s Hull telephone number is unlisted, and she could not be reached for comment. Hull police, reportedly acting on Wightman’s request, this week removed a Boston TV news crew from her doorstep, according to the police log.
    However, a person who represented himself as one of Wightman’s patients called the Times today to dispute the AG’s charges.
    “Lucy [Wightman] never misrepresented herself to me as a psychologist,” the male, who asked not to be identified, said. “Any insinuations to the contrary are really sickening.”
    The man said he was angered to have been contacted by the state Attorney General’s office in connection with this case, and alleged his rights to have his medical history remain private had been violated by his insurance carrier.
    According to the AG’s statement, the case was referred to Reilly’s office by BlueCross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts.
    Questions surrounding Wightman’s credentials first surfaced in a Fox 25 Undercover news report by Mike Beaudet that aired Feb. 20.
    In the TV segment, Fox Undercover producer Jonathan Wells used a hidden camera for an interview with Wightman, during which she allegedly told him she was a psychologist.
    Beaudet also revealed that Wightman – then Lucy Johnson – in the 1970s had been a celebrated exotic dancer who performed as Princess Cheyenne at various Boston clubs and, later, at The Foxy Lady in Providence; had once been engaged to singer Cat Stevens before the musician converted to Islam; had hosted a radio talk show and appeared in Playboy; and competed as a bodybuilder and won a state title – all before she went back to school to earn her master’s degree and pursue a career in counseling.
    It was insight gained from her diverse background, Wightman’s anonymous patient said today, that makes her “a gifted and knowledgeable” therapist.
    “She totally transformed herself,” he said. “I think that’s a very noble thing.”

29. 29claire on Oct 13, 2005 at 8:43 pm:

    Susan, Thanks for letting us preview the article. It was fairly written. We will always find someone to be on both sides of the argument. I happened to see the Fox25 interview when Lucy was asked if she were a psychiatrist and she responded that she was a psychologist. I also have paperwork signed by Lucy Wightman, Phd, and Psychologist. This paperwork is for insurance purposes as well as legal purposes. Is this fraud? I also believe that because many of Wightman’s patients were children, she should expect hostile reactions from parents. I can parallel it to seeing a physician for years only to find out they are cpr trained and bought their degree in the Dominican Republic since no one else would honor their course work.

30. 30Lucy Wightman on Oct 13, 2005 at 9:43 pm:

    I agree with “Claire” regarding your presentation, Susan and I hope your work is recognized as going above and beyond the yellow journalism game of telephone tag that has been played.

31. 31Ken on Oct 13, 2005 at 11:12 pm:

    I missed the Fox25 news report. Anyone have it saved on their computer?

32. 32legal haven on Oct 14, 2005 at 12:37 am:

    you HEARD WHAT on FOX25??? With a hidden camera? Wait.. was this a consenting interview Ms. Wightman gave to the show or a hidden camera???

33. 33Ken on Oct 14, 2005 at 8:48 am:

    YEAAA how did they use that video on TV? I assume they didn’t have permission to use it. Is there some funky law that enables them to use it cause they’re the press.

34. 34claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 9:01 am:

    The point is that she lied.

35. 35claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 9:04 am:

    Ken, If you go to http://www.fox25.com and go to the Fox Undercover link on the left you will find the written story (posing as a psychologist) with her interview.

36. 36C~ on Oct 14, 2005 at 9:15 am:

    Claire….you state you have “legal and insurance papers” signed from Lucy Wightman, PhD and Psychologist which leads us to believe you (or a family member) saw Lucy Wightman…….so tell us Clarire……..are you one of the 26?

37. 37claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 9:22 am:

    I am not one of the 26.

38. 38legal haven on Oct 14, 2005 at 10:26 am:

    The point is wiretapping is a FELONY.

39. 39legal haven on Oct 14, 2005 at 10:27 am:

    Another point is Claire SHIRKED the concern and like most people comes to conclusions without a logical and stepwise analysis of all the facts.

    We are all more comfortable once we think we know it all.

40. 40lucy wightman on Oct 14, 2005 at 10:30 am:

    Interesting. Maybe Claire went to grad school with me for those 7 years??

41. 41claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 10:50 am:

    How did I SHIRK the concern? So give me the facts. Did she lie or not?
    No on the grad school. I only vacation in the Domincan Republic.

42. 42claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 11:34 am:

    And while we are on the subject of SHIRKING, did it occur to legal haven that Ms. Wightman did some shirking of her own? Perhaps shirking the fact that she called herself a doctor?

43. 43C~ on Oct 14, 2005 at 11:37 am:

    Clarie….when you have a PhD, (which Ms. Wightman does) you can call yourself a doctor!

44. 44claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 11:52 am:

    Your point is???? I never claimed to be a doctor. A PhD? Wow. Congratulations!! Could you share the source?

45. 45C~ on Oct 14, 2005 at 12:05 pm:

    Let’s try to say this a bit more elementary then for those who can’t seem to understand or grasp a point…….When an individual earns a PhD, that specific individual now has the honor and privledge of calling themselves Dr.

46. 46claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 12:25 pm:

    Thank you, C, for clearing that up. I can now get a grasp on your point. However, the point I cannot seem to grasp is where the supposed PhD came from. Perhaps you could help me to understand, in a more elementary way, that is. And did she have this PhD (I am assuming in psychology?)while she was treating all of her patients?

47. 47erin on Oct 14, 2005 at 12:49 pm:

    Can someone clarify the fact that she was turned in by BCBS for credentialing issues. This would mean that they realized that she really doesn’t have a state recongnized license to practice psychology in Massachusetts. Do health insurances pay claims for their patient when they see a psychotherapist as Lucy states she is? Again, I’m just trying to get clarification from someone that knows. If they don’t then I’m not sure how she would defend submitting claims to health insurance companies and receiving money. Does anyone know the answer to that?

48. 48C~ on Oct 14, 2005 at 1:12 pm:

    I have BCBS insurance and they do not and have never asked me if my therpist is licensed or if she has a PhD. I submit my claim and get paid. They don’t even require the signature of my therapist on the form.

49. 49claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 4:11 pm:

    I have submitted claims to insurance that were signed by Lucy Wightman and she was later called to question her licence #. The insurance company (not BCBS) finally did pay some claims but assuming the claims were for a psychologist as they were signed.
    I do not know if the insurance would cover a therapist that was not in their group. I will bet that BCBS will change their policy.
    A question for “C”: If Lucy Wightman does indeed have her PhD in psychology, then why was she indicted by the grand jury? If her lawyers produced her PhD, she should have been easily cleared. Perhaps she should get a new legal team?

50. 50Ken on Oct 14, 2005 at 8:58 pm:

    I’m sure she’s not going to spill all the details of her case and situation until after her court appearances. Im sure her lawyer has advised her of that also.

51. 51claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 10:25 pm:

    I understand and respect the legal issues. However, the silence speaks for itself. I am only asking for proof of her supposed PhD.

52. 52claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 10:26 pm:

    Ken, I look at your response #16….Can it GET any more warped than this????

53. 53claire on Oct 14, 2005 at 11:01 pm:

    Ken, I notice your beautiful child on this blog site. Suppose you had a serious issue with your child and were referred to a psychologist for help. After a year or so and several thousand dollars in payments, you find out that this psychologist was a former stripper. Ok. You can get past this. However, you soon find out that this psychologist is not really a psychologist but has been faking her PhD. In fact she purchased her PhD on line from a diploma mill in a foreign country. How would you and your wife respond? This is your child you are talking about.

54. 54semantics on Oct 15, 2005 at 12:51 am:

    OK OK. Claire sure is “fired up” and clearly to take the time to keep obsessively watchdogging a blog and commenting (13 posts in one day) there is some hidden agenda.

    Being a linguist in trade I notice a pattern of not following up on questions asked such as the audio question. The descriptives like “shady background,” “diploma mill,” “I only vacation in the Domincan Republic,” and “silence speaks for itself,” are consistently about only 1 possibility - yours. More than one episode of cutting sarcasm and an almost hysterical, urgent need to convert the masses to your narrow, and if I daresay, naive perspective.

    You make very definitive accusations like “she lied,” “does not hold a valid phd (in psychology anyhow,)” “I also have paperwork signed by Lucy Wightman, Phd, and Psychologist. This paperwork is for insurance purposes as well as legal purposes,” (and what are those exactly?),and “has been faking her PhD.”

    Use of multiple exclamations is a way to get the reader’s attention, and then some…. and then some more.

    Asking questions when one already has their own private answer like, “Is this fraud?” is a strategy used to trick others into wondering along with someone who is actually not wondering at all.

    Your appeal to, say Ken’s fatherhood, as a softer, more vulnerable, therefore accesible entry point for your rather stubbornly toxic campaign comes on the heels of not getting the response you would like from C~. If one tracks your response timeline, the pace picks up quite a bit if you are not responded to (immediately gratified) by the readers in a timely fashion. You then return to re-read the posts again to enlist others in your descriptive term “warped.” When this recruits no one, you go for the soft underbelly.

    Speech analysis alone is fascinating and it goes without saying that we can never muster the right balance of objectivity to be our own analysts. I am of the ilk where one waits until “the fat lady sings.” Until that point I am a collector of data. Therefore I am on neither side of the pass, just observing.

    I am sorry, Claire, that you seem so troubled by something that in reality is not your trouble at all. Maybe you just enjoy a good go-round.

    And Claire, maybe you could teach me a thing or two about the term “diploma mill.” What is the functional meaning of this?

55. 55Al on Oct 15, 2005 at 9:51 am:

    Susan,
    You are a journalist. This thread reveals still more. And I never thought I’d say this, but I agree with semantics. Obeservation is a blessing.

    How we carve up the world into names matters and we fight over that naming and sometimes sink into petty battles over that naming that have nothing to do with the external world. Names are good, but it’s verbs that really define who we are.

    Lucy is the real deal and, claire, you really have nothing to worry about.

    p.s. I am a psychologist. I hold no degree that annoints me as such. Not even close. There. Come prosecute me, thought police!

56. 56claire on Oct 15, 2005 at 10:31 am:

    Semantics and Al, Thanks for the complimentary therapy session. I will take the time to absorb your words and reflect as needed.
    Yes, we shall wait and see what happens.

57. 57semantics on Oct 15, 2005 at 5:11 pm:

    There we go again! No answer to the question. Ah well.

58. 58B.Z. on Oct 15, 2005 at 6:56 pm:

    I recently came across this blog, and I felt that I should share my thoughts.

    I know Lucy personally, and there is no need to say if I am a patient or not.

    I think that these charges are ridiculous. I bet that if the Fox 25 Episode didn’t air, none of this would be happening. Lucy would be continuing to help her patients as she helps me. Personally, I don’t give a shit if My therapist is licensed. I do care that she has some experience and knows what she is talking about. Lucy went to many years of school, studying Psychology and the way the mind works. She is always there for me, and she is one of the kindest and caring people I know.

    It makes me cry, thinking of how all of this is affecting her. Not because of business, but emotionally as well. This is a human being we are dealing with. Who dedicated her life to helping the lives of others. Who spent hours and hours every single day, trying to figure out and help treat the issues that others were trying to overcome. It is truly amazing how she did all of that, while at the same time having a life and family of her own.

    I understand, how people who do not know her can assume what they read is all there is to this story. But I ask you all, do you remember high school, and rumors and gossip. This is exactly like that. Hey, some of it may be true, but what about the other sides of the story. Give her a chance to speak her side. There are so many cases out there, that turn out to be false. And the suspects remain innocent. And even cases where the suspects are charged, convicted, and punished, for crimes that they did not do.

    No matter what happens, I will stand by Lucy through all of this, because she stood by me when things weren’t going well for me. I know you can get through this Lucy. I know you can. You are such a good person and I want to thank you for still standing up for yourself. In the end, I hope everything turns out well. You don’t deserve this at all.

    Stay strong and don’t give up.

59. 59Chris on Oct 15, 2005 at 7:41 pm:

    Unfortunately, we shall all have to wait to see what happen. In the meantime, this is a waste of Lucy’s valuable time and energy, which could surely be better utilized treating her patients. She already seems to work 24/7, and now she has to defend a frivolous case, and Claire’s attacks!

    Frankly, it makes no difference to me or my family what credentials are/were listed on her business cards, company sign, or any insurance forms. What is more important is that Lucy is an intelligent and highly capable counselor, who we choose to see without support of insurance reimbursement. We have not been as lucky with individuals that our insurance company has referrred us to.

    Lucy, you know you have our support. Also, I would probably go with a Jones New York suit and Talbots blouse, but I am the queen of conservative (which I’m working on)!!

60. 60Calvin on Oct 15, 2005 at 9:45 pm:

    I’m curious, if Lucy was found guilty on all charges, what would the punishments be?

61. 61legal haven on Oct 15, 2005 at 11:32 pm:

    Sentencing guidelines (the grid) are just that: guidelines. That supposes that a deal is not made, which, given the devestating effects of the defamation, is most likely. Most public defenders would encourage a deal before defending through a trial.

    If one does choose to defend, I cannot imagine that all the witnesses (patients) would acquiesce to the requirements of not only a trial, but the various pre-trial interviews, discovery and so on.

    Sadly, those who have the funds, have the best counsel, unless their is high profile value to the case.

62. 62semantics on Oct 15, 2005 at 11:34 pm:

    oh dear.
    claire appears to have left us.
    the protagonist has taken the weekend off.

63. 63claire on Oct 16, 2005 at 12:10 am:

    I am here, patiently awaiting responses. Semantics, I am not sure what questions you needed answered. Am I looking for a good “go around?” Sure, what the heck. As you accuse me of being consumed by this blog, what is your interest in counting the number of times I responded in one day and analyzing my punctuation??????
    You seem to be a bit antagonistic yourself.
    And where did “C” go?

64. 64claire on Oct 16, 2005 at 12:15 am:

    Sorry to reply again so quickly but here is the elementary diploma mill as found in Websters.com
    n. Informal
    An unaccredited institution of higher education that grants degrees without ensuring that students are properly qualified.

65. 65C~ on Oct 16, 2005 at 11:45 am:

    Claire……Why are you so concerned as to where I am?

    Legal haven….I doubt Lucy will plead…I’m sure she wants to defend herself and get her side told since you can’t do that with the grand jury. It would be horrible and I feel bad for what Lucy is going through…she does NOT deserve this. If and when it goes to trial, I can’t wait for the “famous 26″ to be investigated and have their lives turned upside down….Geez…I hope none of them have secrets….Mmmmm we will see and you can bet, they will all be revealed!

    Chris…I too am behind Lucy 100% and you are right, she is a BRILLIANT Individual and a FANTASTIC therapist. One thing I don’t agree with…No Talbots…Ann Taylor is much better…..however, I do agree with a Jones suit…that’s ok…. Kudos to you for saying outloud you are “working on your being conservative!! Good job!

66. 66claire on Oct 16, 2005 at 12:33 pm:

    C, I was just curious as to why, when I asked you questions, you did not answer. Such as, if Lucy holds a valid PhD, where is it from? I was also enjoying the banter.

    I agree with C (imagine that) that it is doubtful Lucy will make a deal. She is too much of a fighter for that.

    Will the 26 people be required to testify at court? It will be interesting to see who they are. Does anyone know what percentage of those 26 had children as clients of Lucy?

67. 67Greenarrow on Oct 16, 2005 at 3:47 pm:

    I don’t care about Claire, unless she is the underhanded sneak who created this mess in the beginning. Someone brought this undeserved story to Fox in the first place and clearly did it in a vindictive manner with the clear intention of harming Lucy without the least connection to any concern for the ‘protection’ of the public.

    The fact that Fox and Tom Rielly, formly known as the Middlesex Pursecutor, jumped all over this cheap headline says more about their ethics than it does about Dr. Wightman’s.

    There is a long history of numerous and various titles being used in the field of pyschological therapy and much confusion as to their application and utilization over the years. I defy any ten non-professionals to come up with the same definitions of pyschologist, psychotherapist, psychological counsulor, and half a dozen others.

    One interesting point is that it was only in March of this year that the state of Massachusetts determined to enforce a dictum that a ‘Psychologist’ had to be state liscenced in order to refer to themselves as such. It was never deleniated in our leading schools of psychology that such was required nor is this the universal practice in other states. Futhermore, the state never made any attempt to notify anyone practicing psycology in Massachusetts that they were intending to enforce this new requirement. Nevertheless, the publicity loving AG’s Office jumped all over this ‘news story’ as if they had discovered Al Queda in Hull.

    Lucy Johnson studied hard and worked harder to aquire the ability and skill to help others. Her long list of grateful and satisfied clients attests to her commitment and ability. The people she helped, and for the reasons they required help, are not in the position to make their lives public by marching to her defense.

    These indictments are as useless and unnecessary as most of the things Tom Reilly does with his office. All that reasonable oversight of psychological practice in Massachusetts required in this case was a reminder from the state that now only licensed persons could use the word psycologist in relation to their practice and that insurers must establish that the providers of services that they are covering under the heading of psychology must hold a license from the state.

    The facts of this case make Reilly’s prosecution malicious and totally unwarrented. It is a waste of public resources and public funds and is clearly intended for nothing but the enhancement of his desire to be the next Governor of our state. I state with utmost confidence that Lucy Wightman was far from the only unlicensed psychologist praticing in Massachusetts and without the ‘Princess Cheyenne’ headline-hook, she, like all the others, would not be facing court dates, personal and financial hardships, unwanted publicity, revisiting of previous life experiences, and the disruption of the helpful service to her neighbors that she has trainned and worked to provide.

68. 68Calvin on Oct 16, 2005 at 6:40 pm:

    I don’t even know Claire, yet I still want to jump out of her computer screen and give her the “bitchslap” that she deserves.

69. 69claire on Oct 16, 2005 at 8:46 pm:

    Wow Calvin. It appears that you have some anger management issues.
    Do you care to elaborate on your comment? What is it that gets under your skin?

70. 70Calvin on Oct 16, 2005 at 9:58 pm:

    Your sarcasm & viewpoint on this case. And how is that anger managment? I said i WANT to, do you see me hurting you? No. I didn’t think so. What do you have against Lucy anyways? We are all dying to know. It seems that you want her to lose so bad. You obviously do not know her as well as I do, to take pride in the fact that she does not deserve these charges.

71. 71semantics on Oct 16, 2005 at 10:35 pm:

    Greenarrow - I am not worthy! Your eloquent and succint passage is written with such measured passion and stepwise logic. Your presentation brings vague theories to concrete understanding. Are you an attorney? A speech writer? I hope that if you are a lawyer, that you will represent Wightman.

72. 72danny on Oct 16, 2005 at 10:52 pm:

    Lucy(Princess Cheyenne)was profiled by a couple of news magazines about 15 years ago. In those profiles, I got the impression that she was an intelligent,skilled, and warm person. Claire, people lie or embellish their credentials all the time. As a matter of fact I bet at least once in your life you might have embellished something yourself. But perhaps I’m wrong-maybe you’ve never done any thing wrong in your life. This lady,Lucy, from what i’ve read here is a damn good therapist!!! I’ve gone to therapist who have absolutely sucked!! I have a damn good one right now, and I wouldn’t trade her for anything. Claire, she’s a social worker. Her credentials aren’t plastered on her wall. All I know is she’s damn good!! I don’t give a rat’s ass about credentials as do you Claire. Are you with Fox 25,or one of the insurance companies, or are you a lawyer in Tom Reilly’s office?

73. 73claire on Oct 16, 2005 at 11:20 pm:

    Gee, this sure is fun being beat up constantly. Calvin, I assume your anger since you jumped into the blog with one question and suddenly you want to “bitchslap” me for my opinions.
    I am a mother of children who were treated by Lucy. Imagine my suprise when one snowy Sunday afternoon as we gathered with friends to watch football, a commercial for Fox25 news comes on showing Lucy, their therapist, as a stripper. Yes, my children were the viewers, as well as our friends. So we addressed the situation with our children and with Lucy. After the initial shock value (and I absolutely agree that the shock value is 100% the fault of Fox25 and the woman responsible for the story). It took some time, but we were able to understand Lucy’s past. She insisted that she was the real thing, that she had her degrees in order and would prove herself worthy of her PhD. However, to later find out that we were again betrayed by her schooling, denied the truth of her credentials and allowed doubt of our children’s treatments….this is where our anger creeps in.
    Danny, sure people embellish. I am quite sure that I have embellished in my life. Did it interfere with other’s lives tho? I tend to doubt that.
    Lucy is a very intelligent and yes, a witty person. She can make you think, make you laugh out loud, make you pissed off at the world in order to do something about it. Guess what? I am pissed.
    I am not at all sorry that I am making you all angry with my opinion. Are you all holding a support group or something?
    Greenarrow, you write with knowledge and grace. I appreciate that.

74. 74ruth on Oct 17, 2005 at 12:12 am:

    Not embellishing and telling the truth is a good thing. A parent once called me, knowing I taught where Lucy went to school to ask about the truth in terms of her education. This parent had been told the truth, as it is told in the media, but can you filter through the sleezy presentation? The parent was told that as disappointed as Lucy was to have withdrawn from MSPP during year 5, she submitted everything to this online degree program and was granted a PhD knowing it was not license eligible. This is not lying.

    Claire you sound mad about a lot of things and you sound very intelligent as well. I am guessing you never returned to the source, your children’s therapist, to process any of this. It is never too late.

75. 75ruth on Oct 17, 2005 at 12:15 am:

    in other words Claire, you never did say how you came to this “truth” other than the media and gossip as B.Z. mentions. She said she was the real thing, that she would stand behind her training and education yet you never gave her the chance, letting the ledia win out.

76. 76Ken on Oct 17, 2005 at 3:45 am:

    danny, what was the profile for and where was it published?

77. 77erin on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:00 am:

    I think the thing that is going to cause the most problems for Lucy is that she allegedly submitted claims to health insurers using a false Massachusetts lisence number to receive payment as a psychologist.

    If all her patients knew that she was a psychotherapist then I don’t think she will have a problem on that charge. It seems that she was upfront with them about that.

    I feel real strongly if she committed insurance fraud she should really be penalized for that. A crime like that is one of the reasons why healthcare is so costly.

78. 78C~ on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:21 am:

    Claire… Because of the media coverage only, YOU ALLOWED the doubt to come into play on Lucy treating your kids. Too bad you didn’t trust Lucy when she told you she could prove herself. You trust her before, too bad you took the media’s side. Its a shame ….your kids lost a smart, intelligent and compassionate therapist.

    Also Claire..you said you “were pissed”…what are you so pissed about? You asked Lucy about her past etc. and she told you the truth. Yet, you made the decision from what the media reported that Lucy wasn’t telling the truth. You are asking all of us to give you the proof that Lucy is legit…..Claire, what proof do YOU HAVE (not the media reports) that she isn’t?

79. 79C~ on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:23 am:

    Erin…I’m curious to know where you got your information that Lucy used a false license number to receive payments? This is the first I ever of it.

80. 80erin on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:30 am:

    It was my impression that this whole thing was brought up becuase of some credentialing issues with a health insurance. Bluecross Blueshield. A credentialing issue would involve a problem with the medical provider’s license number or their actual ability to show credentials. In Massachusetts a psychologist would be assigned a Massachusetts lisence number showing they are able to practice in Massachusetts. A health insurance like BCBS would not issue payment to a psychologist without that psychologist showing that they are lisenced in Massachusetts. I thought the real issue here was that Lucy was submitting claims to insurance companies as a psychologist? You can tell me if I’m wrong.

81. 81parental input on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:46 am:

    When I requested coverage from Tufts Health Plan for Lucy for my daughter’s visits starting in 2001, she had already been issued a provider number. When I received a letter confirming approval for visits, it was to Lucy Wightman and her stated degree was a masters degree. There was no reference to doctor. I had a long conversation with the mental health department at Tufts about Lucy and there was never any mention of her being a psychologist. I had to get special approval since she was not one of their providers. They definitely approved her back then for insurance coverage without a PhD or a license. I have the insurance letter to prove it.

82. 82Ken on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:46 am:

    Erin, you think you’re some smarty pants insurance person? What are your credentials?

83. 83erin on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:50 am:

    Easy now big Ken. I happen to work in an insurance related field and we deal with provider numbers and credentialing in my company.

    If Lucy was not giving say BCBS the impression that she was a psychologist then why did they report her?

    I guess I just want to know more about that part of it. Ken.. get on it. Call BCBS and find out what the story is over there. You call yourself a blogger!

84. 84C~ on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:01 am:

    I have BCBS and they have never asked me (or Lucy) to provide a license number or prove she held a PhD.

85. 85erin on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:05 am:

    Well they wouldn’t have asked you C. How would you know if they asked Lucy? Do you have to submit your own bills to the insurance for visits with Lucy? How do you say without a doubt they have never asked her for a license number?

86. 86claire on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:05 am:

    Hey C. Talk about hearsay. Some person writes a blog asking me if I followed up with Lucy, (which I did) and you are suddenly accusing me of believing only the media and perhaps neglecting my duties as a parent? Nice. I’ll have you know that I am an outstanding mother.
    I followed up closely with the story and with other professionals. Lucy assured me that she had her Phd. and that she was a psychologist. Seems she would not be in this position were this true. HAD Lucy told us from the start that was a therapist, we could have made a decision to continue seeking treatment with her. Honestly, I think we would have stayed with her regardless of her credentials. My point is that she did not tell us her background and all of the papers she signed for us lead us to believe (without the help of the media) that she was fraudulent.
    I suppose the proof will be shown in court.
    Let’s let our lovely legal system decide the rules.
    What about the other therapists/counselors/psychologists….what-ever their titles are, who left Lucy’s office due to this fiasco?
    I also fought with insurance companies to get covered. I fought on our behalf as well as Lucy’s, insisting that she was a psychologist as she told us. Lucy told us that the reason she was not licensed was due to our own privacy issues (not ours exclusively, but those of her patients.)

87. 87claire on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:08 am:

    Erin, Yes, we all submitted our own insurance forms, signed by Lucy. We paid upfront and then we personally were reimbursed by insurance if it were approved. That is how it worked for us, anyhow. Our forms were always signed by a PhD.

88. 88Fired Up on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:12 am:

    Claire said “(and I absolutely agree that the shock value is 100% the fault of Fox25 and the woman responsible for the story).” It was a guy Mike Baudet, but at least you agree with something.Claire said “Are you all holding a support group or something?” Is that suppose to be funny? I think that is in bad taste. Oh and the answer to that would be No.

    Claire I’m sorry you feel that Lucy betrayed you in some way, but did she help your children at all? I’m just curious. That would be enough for me to see past the media crap and know that there are some really bad people out there in this field and that you have found a good one. Just try to look at all angles of the story. I don’t disagree with you feeling pissed about this situation. When I found out I too was pissed,and scared. When I did eventually calm down. I tried to look at both sides. I decided for myself that Lucy was a hell of a lot more than the media reports. It was then I decided to stand by her and will continue to do so.

89. 89erin on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:16 am:

    Your forms were always signed PhD even though her PhD was not recognized in the state of Massachusetts. She is having YOU submit claims to a Massachusetts health insurance? Seems a little fishy. Again, these are just my views on it. I don’t really know what BCBS or any other health insurance has in their system about Lucy. I just know that a report was filed by a health insurance stemming from credentialing issues.

90. 90claire on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:23 am:

    Fired Up, It was Mike Baudet who reported this story. I believe it was someone else who gave him the heads up. Mike was only doing his job, and obviously did it well to get such a grand response.
    This seems to be a groupie blog, which is why I made the comment about a support group. I did not mean to offend and I apologize if I did. Just trying to lighten up a bit.
    I have looked at both sides. Perhaps it is because we are dealing with our children and the emotion of messing with your kids can really fire one up. I feel that we were not told the truth and therefor have the right to be pissed. Had it been only me seeing Lucy that may be a different story, I can’t say.

91. 91Ken on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:35 am:

    When is Lucy’s trial day? This thursday?

    We should get a bunch of us to go down there and lend support.

92. 92C~ on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:38 am:

    Claire…Chill ou