Latest / Why Humans Lie / The Book That Stole His Name: How a Life Was Quietly Erased

Transcript

The Book That Stole His Name: How a Life Was Quietly Erased · Why Humans Lie

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: At seven forty three. On a Tuesday morning in July
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, a septic contractor named Carl Thompson lifted a
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: service hatch in a locked side yard and found something
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: that had no business being there. A mahogany framed academic
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: journal article glass intact, sitting flat on a concrete septic lid.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: The byline read Warren Kowalski. The yard belonged to Warren Kowalski,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: and no one was supposed to have a key to
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: that gate. Thompson photographed the frame before he touched it.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: That photograph would not enter evidence for another fourteen months.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: What happened inside Aldermore University before that morning, and what
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: one graduate student had to do to force anyone to
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: look is a story about how completely one person can
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: erase another while making the erasure look like mentorship. Cynthia
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Simpson grew up outside Roanoke, Virginia, first in her family
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: to finish a bachelor's degree, first to apply to graduate school.
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: She enrolled in Aldermore's organizational psychology master's program in the
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: fall of twenty seventeen, and she arrived with the kind
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: of focus that comes from knowing exactly how much the
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: opportunity cost. She ran before dawn most mornings. The route
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: took her past the Birch Hill water Tower two and
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: a quarter miles out Saint Loup Pre seven a m
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: Her friend, Paula Garrett, a second year student, described her
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: as compulsively reliable, always answered texts within the hour, always
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: showed up to the Thursday cohort. Dinners had a plan
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: for every stage of the degree. Finish coursework, complete the thesis,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: apply for a postdoctoral fellowship in North Carolina, Move forward.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: That was the Cynthia Simpson who arrived at Aldermore. What
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: the institution gave her in return was Warren Kowalski. Kowalski
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: held an endowed share in the psychology department, fifty one
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: years old, prolific record, the kind of faculty member whose
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: name appears in grant acknowledgments for research he advised from
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: a distance. He was assigned as Cynthia's academic advisor in
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: October twenty seventeen, shortly after she arrived. His introduction of
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: her at a departmental reception that semester was unambiguous. He
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: called her, according to people present, the most rigorous thinker
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: i've encountered in five years. That sentence matters hold it
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: for a first generation student navigating a research university for
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: the first time. That kind of public endorsement from an
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: endowed chair is not just flattering, It is structural. It
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: determines which opportunities open, which faculty members return emails, which
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: committees take a student's work seriously. Kowalski understood that he
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: had been in that department for over a decade. By
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: spring time twenty eighteen, Cynthia's research had been steered through
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: assigned readings, methodological guidance, and a data set Kowalski provided
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: from what he described as a previous lab toward a
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: specific topic. Adaptive identity, pressures in organizational contexts, the framing,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: the vocabulary, the analytical lens. All of it pointed in
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: one direction. That direction happened to be the exact subject
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: of a peer reviewed article Kowalski had published in the
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: Journal of Behavioral and Organizational Psychology in March twenty sixteen.
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: He gave her the data set himself. He said it
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: was archival from prior research. What it actually did was
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: imbed his intellectual fingerprints inside her analysis. From the first page,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: she had no reason to question it. He was her adviser.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: That was his role. By fall twenty eighteen, Cynthia had
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: completed three draft thesis chapters. She was on schedule. The
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: North Carolina Fellowship was eighteen months away. Everything looked like
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: it was working. Then Kowalski began pulling her inward. The
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: Thursday cohort dinners stopped for Cynthia in October twenty eighteen.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Paula Garrett noticed first. She texted Cynthia directly. The reply
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: came back, measured and brief. Deep in the work. I'll
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: explain later. Garrett did not push graduate students disappear into
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: their research, it happens. What Garrett did not know was
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: that Kowalski had been managing Cynthia's correspondence with the graduate office.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: He had told Cynthia that outgoing academic emails needed to
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: go through a review process, a professional development protocol. He
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: called it, designed to help students communicate with appropriate precision.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: No one in the department had verified this protocol. According
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: to the record, it was not real, but it sounded institutional.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: It sound like something a rigorous adviser might require, and Cynthia,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: who had never had an academic adviser before had no
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: baseline to tell her otherwise. He controlled what she sent out,
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: he controlled what came back in, and he controlled her
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: access to the department's shared server, where her draft chapters lived.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: The fellowship she had planned for, the one in North Carolina,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: rejected her application in May twenty nineteen. The rejection letter
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: described her submitted work as heavily derivative. The source of
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: that characterization was traced within the department, but was never
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: formally proven. Cynthia had built a two year plan around
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: that fellowship. It was gone in a single paragraph, and
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: somewhere in the weeks between that rejection and the morning
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Carl Thompson crouched over a septic lid, Cynthia Simpson stopped
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: waiting for the institution to notice what was happening to her.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: There is a number that does not appear in any
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: of Kowalski's published work, any grant report, or any curriculum vita.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: It is forty one. That is how many times over
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: a six month period, Kowalski's university login accessed Cynthia Simpson's
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: thesis chapters on the department's shared server, not to read
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: them in the ordinary sense. An adviser reads a student's
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: work to return to them repeatedly methodically. The IT logs
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: recorded each visit with a timestamp forty one entries six months,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: and Cynthia did not know the count existed until Jason
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Nelson pulled the logs in the summer of twenty nineteen.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: But the logs were only one thread. To understand why
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: they mattered, you have to understand what Kowalski was building
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: alongside them. The chapter that would eventually become Cynthia's central
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: argument began taking shape in the spring of twenty eighteen.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Kowalski had steered her research toward a specific conceptual territory,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: adaptive identity pressures, the psychological mechanisms by which people reconstruct
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: their sense of self under institutional stress. He provided the
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: reading list, he provided the methodology. He provided the data set,
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: which he described as material from a previous lab study.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: That data set is worth stopping on. It was not
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: neutral scaffolding. It was a structural fingerprint. The analytical choices
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: embedded in it, the variables selected, the waiting applied, created
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: a signature that would later link Cynthia's work directly to
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: Kowalski's own published output. He had handed her a frame
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: and told her it was blank. By fall of twenty eighteen,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: three draft chapters were complete. They lived on the shared
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: server under her login. Kowalski's login visited them repeatedly, according
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: to the timestamps, Here is where the image shifts. In
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: March of twenty nineteen, Cynthia received a conference rejection for
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: an abstract she says she never submitted. The abstract had
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: appeared under her name through a university email address she
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: did not control. When she asked Kowalski about it, he
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: described it as a courtesy submission, a gesture of professional support.
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: The explanation was smooth, it arrived without apology, but the
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: address that submitted the abstract was not hers, and the
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: submission had traveled through the same correspondence channel Kowalski managed
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: under his fabricated protocol. That was the first visible seam
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: in the structure he had built around her. She did
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: not yet know how many seems there were. In May
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: of twenty nineteen, the North Carolina Fellowship rejection arrived. The
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: letter described her work as heavily derivative. The phrase landed
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: with precision, derivative of what the letter did not specify,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: but within the department. The source of that characterization was
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: later traced, though never formally Provennthia had spent two years
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: building toward that fellowship. She had run her two point
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: two five miles past the Birch Hill water tower before
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: seven in the morning while that application was in progress.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: The rejection was not a setback. It was a door
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: being held shut by someone standing on the other side.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: She did not wait much longer. In June of twenty nineteen,
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: before the septic lid became evidence, Cynthia walked into the
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: office of Jason Nelson, faculty conduct attorney, with a folder
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: of printed server logs, draft chapters, time stamped submission records,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: and the conference abstract she had not written. Nelson reviewed
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: the materials. He then contacted the editorial office overseeing the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: peer reviewed volume on Identity Formation, where a chapter had
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: been submitted under Kowalski's name alone. The submission was frozen
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: before publication. The chapter was Cynthia's. There is something precise
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: about the way kay Kowalski offered explanations during the Integrity
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: Board proceedings that followed. He did not deny. He reframed
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: each piece of evidence taken alone received an alternative reading
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the server access logs normal advisory oversight, the conference abstract,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: a misunderstanding between accounts, the data set, shared lab property
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: as any mentor might provide the submission under his name,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: an authorship question complicated not yet resolved. He was treating
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: each item as an isolated object that required the board
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: to treat them the same way, and for a period
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: in the summer and fall of twenty nineteen that approach held.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: The board was moving carefully. Kowalski was still publishing, still
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: a named chair the professional Development Protocol. The email oversight
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: system he had told Cynthia was standard practice had never
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: been verified by anyone in the US Department, but it
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: also had not yet been formally challenged. The image that
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: fractured the isolation strategy was not the server logs. It
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: was Sandra Klein. Klein had been a graduate student in
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: Kowalski's lab from two thousand fourteen to two thousand fifteen.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: She left Aldermore without completing her degree. During the investigation,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: text analysis software was applied to her draft thesis chapter,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: a file she had saved on a university server she
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: could no longer access after her departure. The software flagged
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: a statistically significant match between that chapter and a section
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: of Kowalski's two thousand sixteen published article in the Journal
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: of Behavioral and Organizational Psychology. The twenty sixteen article the
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: same publication whose framed copy Carl Thompson had found on
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: a concrete septic lid at seven forty three in the morning.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: The frame was mahogany stained eleven by fourteen glass, still
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: in ti It had been placed there deliberately sometime before
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: Thompson arrived for a routine service call, using a sidegate
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: key that Kowalski had given Cynthia for access to external
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: lab storage. She had kept it. The photograph Thompson took
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: that morning entered evidence fourteen months later. Kowalski's isolation strategy
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: required each piece of evidence to be treated as singular.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: Sandra Klein's draft made that impossible. There was now a pattern,
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: and a pattern requires a different explanation than a misunderstanding picture.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: The integrity board working through each item Kowalski had reframed individually,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: the server logs, the abstract, the submission, the data set.
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: Each one had received a surface explanation. Now imagine what
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: happens when you place Klein's draft next to Cynthia's chapters
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: and run the same text analysis software across all three,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: the matched vocabulary, the structural parallels the particular frame of
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: identity formation. Under institutional pressure, they form a line. A
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: direction one explanation accommodates two isolated incidents. It does not
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: accommodate a line walk through the version Kowalski needed the
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: board to accept he was an adviser who accessed his
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: students server files forty one times because he was engaged,
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: thorough genuinely invested in her progress. He submitted the conference
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: abstract as a professional courtesy an oversight about the email account,
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: nothing more. He provided the data set because shared lab
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: materials are standard practice in psychological research. The chapter submitted
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: under his name alone represented a genuine authorship dispute, the
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: kind that gets resolved in good faith between colleagues. That
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: version requires every decision to be independent. It requires Cynthia's
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: isolation from peers in fall of twenty eighteen to be coincidence.
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: It requires the fellowship rejection language to be coincidence. It
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: requires Sandra Klein's departure without a degree to be coincidence.
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: But here is the thing. The data set Kowalski provided
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: Cynthia was not neutral. It was structured in a way
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: that embedded his analytical fingerprint into her conclusions. That is
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: not a shared resource. That is a claim on the
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: output before the output exists. The strongest version of what
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: happened is also the simplest. Kowalski identified what Cynthia could produce,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: He positioned himself to receive it. The professional development protocol
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: controlled what information she could send out. The server access
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: controlled what she was building. The data set linked his
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: fingerprint to her conclusions before she submitted a single page,
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: and when the North Carolina Fellowship application traveled through the
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: correspondence channel, he managed The rejection letter that came back
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: described her w work as heavily derivative. The framed article
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: on the septic lid was not a discard, It was
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: a statement. The byline on that frame, placed on a
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: concrete lid in a locked side yard using a key
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: he had given her, pointed back at the twenty sixteen article.
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: The text analysis software would eventually match to Sandra Klein's draft.
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: Cynthia Simpson did not leave a note. She left a
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: photograph that Carl Thompson took without knowing what it meant,
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: and she left a folder on Jason Nelson's desk with
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: every log, every time stamp, every draft. She understood by
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: the time she walked into that office that she had
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: been the mechanism. The question the Integrity Board had to
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: answer was whether the mechanism had been designed. The IT
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: logs said forty one. Sandra Kleine said she had a draft.
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: That should not exist inside someone else's by line, and
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: in November of twenty nineteen, in a county jail holding
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: facility on a separate civil matter, Warren Kowalski set it
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: to a cellmate.
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: Without being asked. In September of twenty twenty, a federal
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: judge in Central Virginia sentenced Warren Kowalski to four years.
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: The charges were fraud, academic misconduct, and unauthorized use of
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: computer systems. He was fifty one years old, He had
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: an endowed chair. He had a curriculum vitae built across
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: two decades. He did not confess until the math forced
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: him to. The formal confession came in January of twenty
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: twenty at a deposition when the server logs and the
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: metadata and the text analysis report and Sandra Klein's recovered
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: draft had been assembled into a file that left no
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: alternative explanation standing. Kowalski's attorneys had spent months testing each
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: piece of evidence individually. Individually, each piece could be argued together.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: They could not. But the confession that mattered came earlier,
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: and it came without an attorney in the room. In
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: November of twenty nineteen, Kowalski was held for forty eight
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: hours at the County Jail on a separate civil matter,
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: financial fraud against a former collaborator. His cell mate was
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: a man named Steve Acres. At some point during those
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: forty eight hours, Kowalski spoke without calculation. A Cares later
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: reported the statement to the university through his own attorney.
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: The words per Acres, I built her, and I kept
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: what she made. That sentence is the clearest window into
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: the architecture of what happened. Not I used her work,
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: not I took credit. He built her. The phrasing implies
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: designed from the beginning. It implies that the reading list
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: and the data set and the methodology were not resources
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: given to a student. They were materials used to construct
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: an output. He intended to collect the submission that Jason
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: Nelson froes. The edited volume chapter scheduled for publication in
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: early twenty twenty under Kowalski's name alone, was never published.
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: Nelson contacted the editorial office directly. The chapter was polled
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: before it reached print. That one intervention closed a loop.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: Kowalski had spent nearly two years setting up Sandra Klein's
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: case had no such intervention. She left Aldermore without her
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: degree during the twenty fourteen to twenty fifteen lab period.
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: She had no records proving what she had built. She
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: had only a draft chapter saved to a university server
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: she could no longer access the text. Analysis software recovered
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: what her departure had made invisible. The statistically significant match
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: between her draft in Kowalski's twenty sixteen published article arrived
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: too late for her academic record, It was not too
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: late for the investigation. Her draft became part of the
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: evidentiary file that established a pattern lost time, two students,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: two lab periods, one system. There is a detail that
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: sits at the center of this case and will not leave.
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: At a departmental reception. Early in Cynthia Simpson's first semester,
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: Warren Kowalski introduced her to colleagues as the most rigorous
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: thinker he had encountered in five years. That sentence, spoken
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: in a room full of people who respected him, felt
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: like a gift. It was surveillance. He had already identified
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: what she could produce. The introduction was not praise. It
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: was an inventory taken aloud. Cynthia Simpson came from outside Roanoke, Virginia.
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: She was the first in her family to reach graduate school.
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: She ran two and a quarter miles before seven in
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: the morning, out to Birch Hill water Tower and back
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: before the campus was fully awake. She built three complete
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: thesis chapters in under a year. She did not stop
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: when the fellowship rejection came back in May of twenty nineteen,
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: describing her work as heavily derivative. She stopped running his
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: correspondence channel. Instead, she documented everything she could document. She
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: retrieved what she could retrieve. She walked through a locked
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: side yard using a key he had given her, placed
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: a mahogany framed journal article on a concrete septic lid,
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: and then she built a folder for Jason Nelson. That
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: folder at every log every time, stamp every draft. Carl
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: Thompson photographed the frame on a Tuesday morning in July,
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: without knowing what it meant. Fourteen months later, the photograph
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: was evidence. Kowalski went to prison. The chapter never published.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: Sandra Klein's draft survived inside an evidentiary file, and Cynthia
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Simpson completed her records. The system that was designed to
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: erase her required her to understand it completely before she
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: could dismantle it. She did both. What she built turned
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: out to be something he could not keep. This show
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: is made by Oboe Medium