meadowchik wrote:From the beginning of this thread, people have tried to dismiss all claims of abuse due to the association of Snow with the case
That's not true. It wasn't true the first half dozen times rosebud stated it, it wasn't true when Mary stated it over and over, and it's not true now. I am by no means the first poster to point this out, but the false statement still perpetuates, in spite of many poster's careful attempts to be absolutely clear.
Is there a way that this false statement could be eliminated from further use?
meadowchik wrote:I have no interest in quibbling,
Great. I assume that means my request that your "quibbling" stop will be honored.
meadowchik wrote:the salient point for me being that Snow's involvement should not disqualify the plaintiff's case from serious consideration.
I doubt if anyone disagrees with you, but I don't want to put words in other people's mouths so I'll just say that for myself I expect that the case is being seriously considered, Snow's involvement notwithstanding.
As a part of that serious consideration, the influence on the plaintiffs of Snow and her discredited practices of the time will no doubt be a significant and well-considered part.
Again, I don't wish to engage Lemmie on this, but Cinepro certainly has stated again and again that Snows involvement and hints of SRA renders the alleged victims testimonies irreparably unreliable. Actually it is the main thrust of the Miles motion to dismiss.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
I think it likely that the father abused the children, one on one. I’m very skeptical of the claims against the Miles and the babysitter. And I wonder whether the babysitters suicide was motivated by false allegations.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Mary wrote:Again, I don't wish to engage Lemmie on this, but Cinepro certainly has stated again and again that Snows involvement and hints of SRA renders the alleged victims testimonies irreparably unreliable. Actually it is the main thrust of the Miles motion to dismiss.
Although the motion discusses SRA as background, the motion to dismiss is based solely on the statute of limitations. Because it is a motion to dismiss, it cannot dispute the relevant facts alleged in the complaint.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:I think it likely that the father abused the children, one on one. I’m very skeptical of the claims against the Miles and the babysitter. And I wonder whether the babysitters suicide was motivated by false allegations.
I wonder that, too. So, really, either way, multiple people were victimized. I hope this doesn't get dismissed. Is it too much to hope that better scrutiny and investigative resources are invested in this old case? Let the victims, including any falsely accused, be given their public due.
Lemmie wrote: Great. I assume that means my request that your "quibbling" stop will be honored.
There are enormous chunks of this thread that I have not read, I'm sorry if my recent re-entrance and participation frustrates you.
Not at all. I made no comment on your "recent re-entrance" nor on your overall participation, so it is not clear why you would think that was frustrating anyone.
I was commenting specifically on your statement that encompassed the entire position of people on this entire thread that you now say you haven't fully read:
meadowchik wrote:From the beginning of this thread, people have tried to dismiss all claims of abuse due to the association of Snow with the case..
that was my only objection, nothing else.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mary wrote:Again, I don't wish to engage Lemmie on this, but Cinepro certainly has stated again and again that Snows involvement and hints of SRA renders the alleged victims testimonies irreparably unreliable. Actually it is the main thrust of the Miles motion to dismiss.
Although the motion discusses SRA as background, the motion to dismiss is based solely on the statute of limitations. Because it is a motion to dismiss, it cannot dispute the relevant facts alleged in the complaint.
Thanks Rep Ipsa. But it does call the alleged victims suit frivolous based on SRA and the involvement of Snow, yes?
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
res ipsa wrote:Although the motion discusses SRA as background, the motion to dismiss is based solely on the statute of limitations. Because it is a motion to dismiss, it cannot dispute the relevant facts alleged in the complaint.
Interesting. I assume that's because disputing facts alleged in the complaint is reserved for arguing against, not for a request to dismiss? How long would it typically take to get a ruling on the motion to dismiss, which I assume has to happen first?
Lemmie wrote:Not at all. I made no comment on your "recent re-entrance" nor on your overall participation, so it is not clear why you would think that was frustrating anyone.
I was commenting specifically on your statement that encompassed the entire position of people on this entire thread that you now say you haven't fully read:
meadowchik wrote:From the beginning of this thread, people have tried to dismiss all claims of abuse due to the association of Snow with the case..
that was my only objection, nothing else.
I specifically did not generalize about "the entire position of people on this entire thread," but chose my words carefully.
Great. I assume that means my request that your "quibbling" stop will be honored.