Audrey Seiler: Pathological or Just Plain Pathetic?

[Brent]

Audrey Seiler: Pathological or Just Plain Pathetic?

April 17, 2004
by Steve Hernan


My work occasionally takes me up to Madison, Wisconsin. I happened to be in town on the 31st of March. What started out as an uneventful morning turned very ugly in the space of a few seconds.

As I was entering the UW Medical Center, I heard a series of shouts emanating from the driveway leading up to the hospital. Along with several other onlookers, I turned towards the source of the commotion.

A young man was sprawled face down on the pavement. Several police officers materialized from the other side of the parking garage, weapons all drawn. The officer in the lead of the pack barked out orders at the prone form. The squad leader was wearing a SWAT-issue flack jacket and he was pointing a high-powered rifle directly at the young man's head. The other officers swarmed around the suspect, slapped on the cuffs, and quickly carted him away. The young man offered no resistance whatsoever (a rather wise decision, I might add).

We were all understandably quite shocked at this event. Had we known then what we know now, we would have been more disgusted than shocked.

Audrey Seiler, the 20-year-old University of Wisconsin sophomore who had been missing since March 27, had just been discovered alive in a marshy area a few miles away from the medical center. According to the police, Ms. Seiler told them that her abductor was still in the area and that he was carrying both a knife and a gun. "I can't leave the woods – a bad man will kill me," quoteth Audrey at the time.

Ms. Seiler's account prompted a major manhunt for her abductor. All in all, the efforts to bring Audrey's captor to justice cost the police upwards of around $100,000 – not to mention the countless hours devoted towards the overall investigation. But how can you even bring up the cost in time or money when you're talking about the sanctity and security of a human life?

The problem is that Audrey Seiler was never in any danger at any time. There was no kidnapper, and no one had ever sequestered her against her will. She made the whole thing up. She lied.

Why did Audrey lie? The answer is simple – she wanted attention.

According to the information obtained by the police during her questioning, Ms. Seiler was upset by a fading relationship with her boyfriend (I will not mention this fellow's name because – contrary to the opinion and actions of the popular media – it is immaterial). She had apparently discovered some amorous e-mail exchanges between her paramour and another woman. This prompted her to embark on her four-day "voyage of self-discovery."

As much as I am appalled at this young woman's behavior, I am equally incensed over the attempts to portray Ms. Seiler as some kind of victim in this scenario. Let's take a look at two such examples.

Immediately after the hoax was exposed, Ms. Seiler cut off all talks with the police. The authorities are now speaking to her only through her attorney, Randy Hopper. In a recent press statement, barrister Hopper stated that Ms. Seiler is receiving medical care after going from "one major crisis to another." Apparently, fabricating a kidnapping is a type of "medical crisis" and does not qualify as a crime.

But her hired gun's spin job pales in comparison to the response of Audrey's alma mater, the University of Wisconsin.

Dr. Luoluo Hong, the UW Dean of Students, issued a statement on April 2 which exemplifies the sad state of rampant political correctness present in academia. Here are some of the more salient excerpts of her response:

"Our thoughts are with Audrey Seiler, the Seiler family and her friends as they continue to go through this trying time."

"While we do not condone the behavior attributed to Audrey by the Madison Police Department, we fully understand that people communicate their need for help in many different ways."

"We want to take this opportunity to remind all of our students that there are a variety of resources available to them, should they be experiencing any kind of difficulty or feeling overwhelmed."

If you hadn't already known that Audrey had faked her kidnapping, you might be inclined to misinterpret this statement. The way it is written almost implies that Audrey has been the victim of some horrendous crime or that she has suffered some severe personal tragedy such as the death of a loved one. Of course, as with any written statement, you must always consider the authority of the source.

If you do a bit of digging on Dr. Hong, you will find that she is a many-faceted individual. In fact, her bio relates that she is an "activist, educator, motivator, comedian, and survivor." A frequent campus speaker, Dr. Hong can often be found rendering her [a href=http://www.campuspeak.com/speakers/hong/" target="xc]personal account[/a] of surviving rape or giving her unique perspective on binge drinking.

Any chance that Dr. Hong might have an agenda?

There is a reason that I specifically cited these two examples. They epitomize the "victimization" mentality which is endemic in two areas – the legal community and academia. In the eyes of these two communities, no one is ever at fault for anything and there is always an external factor or an internal "disorder" which can account for a person's bad behavior.

In the legal realm, it's called the "technicality." That's the deus ex machina that an effective advocate can use to exonerate his or her client. If all else fails, there's always the insanity defense which effectively imputes liability – and personal responsibility – away from the person in question. It is actually quite an elegant argument. With the absence of personal responsibility, there is no need for apologies or restitution.

Not to be outdone, academia is notorious for ascribing labels to previously non-existent pathologies as a way of steering responsibility away from the culpable party. I'm not normally a betting fellow, but I'll wager a double sawbuck that some researcher somewhere is basing his thesis on a newly emerging psychological disorder called "Attention Deprivation Syndrome." I'm sure it will be added to "DSM-V", whenever that comes out.

Audrey Seiler does not need a lawyer or a therapist or a psychologist or a "traumatologist." What Audrey Seiler really needs is a good swift kick to the tookus – perhaps by the young fellow who had the rifle pointed at his noggin for no reason other than that Audrey wanted everyone's attention.

Oh yeah, one other thing. Regarding the question posed in the title of this piece: Pathetic. Definitely pathetic.


Steve Hernan


Copyright 2004, Steve Hernan
Steve Hernan is a healthcare executive and freelance writer living in Chicago.