Anyone remember Princess Cheyenne? If not you might have heard about a South Shore woman has been indicted on charges she has ALLEGEDLY practiced for years as an unlicensed psychologist, state authorities said Thursday. Louise Wightman, 46, of Hull, was indicted by a Suffolk County grand jury on several counts of filing false health care claims, insurance fraud, and larceny over $250, according to Attorney General Thomas Reilly’s office.
Wightman, who also was indicted on one count of practicing psychology without a license, has been summonsed to court for arraignment on Oct. 20.
Lucy Wightman, a former exotic dancer who used the name “Princess Cheyenne,” allegedly saw patients at South Shore Psychology Associates, a business she founded more than five years ago.
Reilly’s office alleged that Wightman has never applied for or received a license to practice as a psychologist in Massachusetts, which requires a doctoral degree in psychology from a state-recognized program.
Wightman, who has a masters degree in counseling psychology, is allowed to practice as a psychotherapist, which does not require a state license, the attorney general’s office said.
State investigators said most of her clients were school-age children and teenage girls with eating disorders.
Wightman’s phone number in Hull is non-published.
Lucy was convicted of larceny Friday for posing as a psychologist and treating patients for seven years.
Louise Wightman, 47, of Hull was found guilty on 19 of 25 counts by a Suffolk Superior Court jury after less than two days of deliberations. Each count carries a maximum five-year prison sentence. She was scheduled to be sentenced on May 14.
Let’s all keep Lucy in our hearts as recent tragedies have brought enough sadness in her life.
Pages: [37] 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 … 1 » Show All
Pages: [37] 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 … 1 » Show All
Loading ...
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
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.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
No he shouldn’t. and he wouldn’t. and if you believe that that is why Ms. Wightman dropped out of school then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Come on, Joanne–think it through with logic, not with some lie you have heard. This was a psychology school..and presumably she was a good student with a good performance record almost finished with her education. Psychology is predicated on the belief that a person has the capacity to change. Do you REALLY think this free-thinking school that cares about human development would have not worked with her if this was her reason for wanting to leave? I hope she won big in the lawsuit if that was really the reason….for being harrassed or not getting transferred to a new rotation or not getting protected by her supervisors or not getting a modified plan for finishing up or not being allowed to take time off and then return…. Or in the very least, I sure do hope she got her money back–for having been admitted in the first place if there was a rule that you couldn’t be there if you were ever a stripper. And I hope some heads rolled in admissions for THAT oversight–yeah. How could they have forgotten to tell Ms. Wightman that anyone could apply to their school except strippers???
May 18th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I do understand what you are saying…but should the pilot have had to drop out of school because he had worked at the golden banana?