The Usual Double Standard: Public School Teacher Sexually Abuses Minor, Gets a 30-Day Sentence, No Biggie

Erica Ann Ginnetti

Erica Ann Ginnetti: Not a Catholic priest, but a public school teacher

A judge recently sentenced a public high school teacher in Philadelphia to merely 30 days in prison even though she openly admitted to having sex with one of her underage students and sending him "sexually charged" pictures from her phone.

Double. Standard.

Is there anything else to say?

[UPDATE, 5/2/14: And in case you thought the above case was just an anomaly, here is another one, also in Pennsylvania!]


  1. Jim Robertson says:

    Wow! the Pope Francis as Rocky Balboa road show's getting wound up for the fall. Tis lack of justice occured where,ladies and gents?

    I agree 30 days isn't near enough punishment; but then, of all of your abuse enablers. only 1 has spent anytime in jail at all. to say nothing of the vast majority of clerical offenders.

    But this is just a preliminary "event" for the Frank goes to Philly show; Isn't it?

    We will see.

    • Publion says:

      On the 27th at 101PM we get a vivid example of the Playbook maxim to distract whenever necessary and however possible.

      As to the first paragraph:

      Somehow, apparently, we are to consider this TMR article as somehow a form of a “roadshow” (the “Rocky Balboa” bit is most charitably left simply to hang up there where it was put) connected – somehow – to the upcoming papal visit.

      As so often when distraction’s at work, the grammatical and conceptual sense of various bits fails, as it does in the last sentence of the first paragraph.                                                                                                                              

      As to the second paragraph:

      Merely an attempt to divert attention away from the subject at hand by bringing up – more by insinuation than by demonstration – the “abuse enablers” and – ditto – “the vast majority of clerical offenders” (a rather too well-turned phrase from this commenter).

      As to the third paragraph:

      We are back to JR’s bit about this TMR article as being somehow merely a “preliminary event” (again, a rather too well-turned phrase from this commenter) for the papal visit to Philadelphia. “Preliminary” to what, it can well be asked.

      As to the fourth paragraph:

      The recently-assembled Wig of Wise Prudence and Patience advises us that “we will see”. Yes indeed we will. And we can expect by that time that JR will have forgotten this current bit of plop-tossing insinuation and will try to distract us from whatever will develop from the papal visit.

      But let’s not let ourselves get ahead of the present issues here: it becomes clear that the Stampede against the Church is increasingly revealed to be a highly-focused and specific campaign waged not according to the script of a) righteous government merely following a unique and troubling truthful skein of wrong-doing but rather a script of b) a government seeking to undermine the greatest obstruction and rival to its agendas and plans by the (time-honored) gambit of sexual accusations.

      In this comprehensively-structured synergy there are rewards for every element involved: for the tortie industry (whose attorneys gain kudos and huge fees); for the media (who get a steady supply of salacious horror-stories to ‘report’); for pols (who get to pose as righteous avengers of ‘victims’); for allegants who walk away with undreamed-of monies enabled by the tortie-strategies as they surf the media-enabled waves of public outrage and concern generated by their ‘reporting’); and for the various ‘advocacies’ (victimist, radical feminist, and assorted anti-clerical or anti-religious and secularist groups inside of and outside of the Church).

      Something for everyone.

      And we see that the pols have carefully excluded similar and even worse offenses and patterns of offenses among their more valuable allies (public teacher unions, notably).

      And in so restricting the focus, State and local governments and pols are spared the possibility of allegants and torties descending upon public treasuries, large and small, to treat them like piñatas as the Church has been treated as a piñata.

  2. Vince says:


  3. CrusaderRon:E says:

    Public school teachers sexual abuse will not be reported nor included in comedian and late night TV show jokes because Democrats run the public schools. And the Agenda is more important! 

  4. Jim Robertson says:

    You all are hilarious!

    Your prelates allow for and even enable the abuse of your own catholic children and somehow the prelates are the "true" victims?

    How, in the name of your own god, do you think this, the church is being victimized, bullshit's going to sell?

    You've flipped your own wigs. :^)

  5. True Catholic says:

    That's the media for you.     They keep quiet. About all the sexual abuse in public schools. But they jump all over our poor, pedophile priests.

  6. CrusaderKC says:

    While it is true Ms. Goodstein is 90 to 0 at this point; could this be because many other men

    were off fighting wars during the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's & 70's….leaving therm little free time

    to be here in the US behaving this badly?

  7. malcolm harris says:

    CrusaderKC, on the 5th May, seems to be very sweeping in her condemnation of men in general. Are we to understand that more children would have been sexually abused if the men were not oveseas… fighting in wars?

    Hope that was not the intended meaning… because it would reveal a very low estimation of men.. Not to mention just plain wrong.

    Most men have an instinctive reaction to protect children… and women. The only exceptions I have seen have been either drunkards, or deviates, or deranged types.

    Incidentally in thirty years in one parish I never heard the slightest hint that any priest had ever molested a child.

    This is truly a witch-hunt.

    • Jimmy Mitchell says:

      If CusaderKC could back up the claim that more children would have been abused had less men been away at war she might be onto something. Most children that have been sexually abused have been abused by a family member. It would make sense then that more children would have been abused since more men/fathers were not home to prevent or protect their children from being abused. That is if CrusaderKC's assumptions are correct.

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    Well you sure have the witches to hunt.

    I don't care what you have or have'nt "heard".

    So your parish is lucky MAYBE.

    The issue is: You didn't hear about the rest of us who were raped either. Did you? Were we any less raped?

    Wow the guys who are hounding you for money every Sunday and in between, don't want you to find out they've been fucking your kids. And you're suprised by that? They didn't want the money to dry up.

      Is it maybe easier for you to believe the raped are lying; than imagine you judged something wrong?

    Or are you what I think you are the Australian hired hand trying to steer the herd this way or that.

    • Publion says:

      On the 6th at 634PM we are for all practical purposes given JR’s effort to spin the assessment of Abusenik claims and stories as a ‘witch hunt’ (i.e. with the allegators as the hunted).

      And in the second paragraph we are informed that he doesn’t “care” what anybody has or has not “’heard’” – which is rather rich, in light of his voluminously-recorded bits here where he attempts to pass off stuff he has ‘heard’ or ‘read’ as not only a) actual knowledge but also b) the ultimate and definitive knowledge. (Naturally, to qualify as such a factoid or datum first has to pass JR’s careful assessment that it supports his assorted constructed theories and logics.)

      As to the third paragraph: Is there a parish that – contrary to Abusenik dogma – has had no allegations? That parish is just “lucky”, but only “maybe” (scare-caps omitted). But the thought comes to me that if allegations were made only against 4 percent of priests between 1950 and 2002 or so (as the first Jay Report compiled the figures), then a whole lot of parishes – the majority of them, it would seem – did not have and could not have had any allegations made.

      As to the fourth paragraph: JR will try to avoid facts or figures and – but of course – go for the soap opera: he quickly waves the ‘bloody shirt’ of “rape”, asking – not only rhetorically but histrionically: “were we any less raped?”.

      First, we have to note that very few allegated ‘rapes’ (or any lesser allegations) were ever subjected to court trial (thanks to the Anderson Strategies and the time-honored tortie tactical template of compiling multiple-plaintiff lawsuits so that the defendant corporation would have to settle out of court).

      Second, we have to note that there were very few allegations of “rape” made among all the formally lodged allegations (compiled by the first Jay Report).

      Third, we cannot be sure that even the allegations of “rape” actually described an act more properly and accurately classified as ‘statutory rape’, i.e. and act otherwise not construable as rape if perpetrated against an adult, but legally classifiable as rape simply because of the age of the (minor; usually under the age of 18) alleged victim.

      Thus, the answer to JR’s plaint about being “any less raped” may well have to be rendered in the affirmative.

      As to the fifth paragraph: there is therefore very very little evidence of a widespread “fxxxg’ of anybody’s “kids” and this characterization (either as manipulative hyperbole or outright inaccuracy) fails just as spectacularly as it was intended to be successful.

      And who can be surprised that JR would try such a gambit?

      As to the sixth paragraph: I would simply note that it may be easier for JR and the Abuseniks to believe that their stories – however lacking in factuality and veracity they may be – are still justified by the ‘good cause’ in which they were lodged … rather than “imagine” that their scams were, not to put too fine a point on it, both sleazy and whackulent. The complexity and innuendo can work both ways.

      But – of course – the Stampede and Playbook presumption was that since ‘victims’ could not be questioned or doubted (without any such questioner incurring the risk of being labeled a “sociopath” and so on), then Abuseniks could happily deploy all the innuendo and hyperbole that they wanted, without any fear of any logical recoil back upon them. Which was a very sly and shrewd presumption. Except that it doesn’t work on this site.

      And in the seventh paragraph, we merely get a typical innuendo-cum-epithet: since MH doesn’t buy JR’s stuff, then – in JR’s cartoon universe – MH must therefore be “hired” to come and make JR look bad.

      And also: a deployment of JR’s signature and juvenile I’m Not/You Are distraction: it’s not JR and the Abuseniks, but rather the questioners, who are “trying to steer the herd this way or that”.

      Thus: anyone who disagrees with the Abusenik bits and cartoons and points out problematic or uncongenial aspects has to be a professional “hired” to make Abuseniks look bad; while Abuseniks who go after others with their allegations and accusations and mock-diagnoses are merely simple and guileless and heroic and truthy truth-tellers.

      Leaving us with really only one serious question: is this Abusenik script more of a Disney movie or a Lifetime movie?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      LOL! LMFAO!

  9. malcolm harris says:

    Regarding JR's comment of May 6th. He thinks that I might be some kind of 'hired hand', with a hidden intention to 'steer the herd'. 

    Well I am not a 'hired hand'. Not in any sense, nor have I been invited to contribute to this so-called Abuse Matter.  I am just a Catholic… with time to spare….being retired.

    What might perhaps make me a little different to most Catholics is that for over a decade worked as an auditor. It caused my 'rose- coloured glasses' to be discarded permanently. Moreover it also caused a kind of 'bullshit detector' to evolve within me. This detector twitches quite disturbingly when commentors (like JR) are attempting to 'steer the herd'. Or more accurately….. Stampede the herd. 

    In a rational world the throwing of bullshit would not influence public opinion, but sadly this world is not entirely rational. So for the sake of those Catholics who might otherwise be swept along by the Stampede…… I simply try to contribute… on the basis of what I have learned.

  10. Jim Robertson says:

    What herd? What stampede? I just slap on my wig of justice and behave justly.I slip on my underwear of truth and tell the truth. I gird my loins and walk on. I sincerely just want the truth out. Your "bullshit detector" must have skipped you; that or you jammed the works.:^) I see no crowds in support of you, here or anywhere. I see no crowds supporting me, here or anywhere. This is probably the only dialog anyehere in the world on this subject.

    • Publion says:

      On The 7th at 1047PM we get a clear glimpse of something even more primitive than the Playbook: when you’ve got nothing else, just laugh at it. And back to the cafeteria we go.

      On the 7th at 1059PM:

      As to the first and second and third sentences: JR has the “herd” and “stampede” and “wig” bits right.

      As to the fourth and fifth sentences: the “underwear” and “loins” bits are his own and who can be surprised?

      As to the sixth sentence: We are once again given a pious declamation for rhetorical purposes, but – once again – no distinction between ‘personal truth’ and ‘public’ or objective truth (to the extent we are dealing with any truth at all).

      As to the seventh sentence: mere epithet.

      As to the eighth and ninth sentences: apropos of nothing on the table here, we get a riff on “crowds” (which JR does not “see”). He clearly isn’t clear as to the nature of internet commentary, where there are inevitably more readers than commenters. But then again, this bit once again reveals the Abusenik presumption that telling stuff is basically a popularity show (like the old ‘Queen For A Day’ television show that had an applause meter right there on the screen for instant feedback).

      And – actually – this presumption is very congruent with the essential tortie strategy for winning over juries: if you can carry on in such a way that they ‘empathize’ with you , then they may well vote in your favor regardless of the merits of the claim. (But, of course, for the Catholic Abuse cases this tactical principle was not often deployed in courtrooms; the media filled-in for the role of the jury as these cases were – as they say – ‘tried in the media’, while the actual allegations were settled without trial.)

      And the whole thing concludes in the tenth sentence with a further riff apropos of nothing on the table.

      But it is – yet again – not a “dialog”. Because “dialog” is a sustained conversation on a particular and specific topic. And instead, with the Abuseniks, we get no such sustained exchange, but rather the tossing up of various bits, followed by more and unrelated bits (at least until the limited number of talking-points or bits runs out and we start the cycle over again).

      But this cannot be surprising. The Playbook precisely requires that there be no sustained “dialog” unless that “dialog” consists of nothing more than agreement with the Abusenik talking-points. Otherwise, the Playbook requires distraction and avoidance in the myriad ways we have so often seen and continue to see here.

      I have often used the term “mentalities” in describing the type of mental approaches that the Stampede and the Playbook would by their very nature and by their very dynamics attract.

      Those dynamics would provide an especially fertile field for persons, say, who: don’t have a large store of knowledge; don’t have a rational template for processing information and drawing coherent conclusions based upon (accurate) information; don’t have a particularly extended attention-span; are eager for some shot at status (in almost any form); aren’t particularly clear-about or committed-to distinctions between objective factual truth and … other things; would – as do most of us, probably – like to have a big bunch of money; are primarily ‘oppositional’ (as the clinicians would put it) in regard to established institutions to ‘compensate’ (ditto) for their own lack of conventionality (let us not say ‘normality’) and success achieved through the hard slog of conventional means; and whose basic stance toward the world crystallized into hard permanence sometime rather too early in life.

      And all of this would be intensified if – as indicated in its own listing of potential and possible damage and toxic sequelae – the use of LSD, even if only used for a while (and even with what might be charitably called ‘good intentions’), did indeed create lasting if not also permanent sequelae. The potential consequences of LSD are not at all predictable in any specific person and in certain types could create their damage with even limited use.

      And the internet modality certainly opened up extensive new fields for such types.

  11. SUNSHINE says:

    Well, I was thinking about black boxes today.  Do you think the black boxes we are required to return to the cable companies store personal data?  Why is it a federal crime to destroy or tamper with these boxes?   SHAME on the man who is aware an innocent's privacy is being violated for "FREE" cable!!!!!!!  We all know there is a such thing as a "FREE LUNCH".

  12. Jim Robertson says:

    You reactionary son of a bitch. Judge not.  He/she who is without "sequelae" cast the first stone.

  13. Jim Robertson says:

    Princess, if you remember "Queen for a Day"; you are older than me or at least near my age. So no LSD for you. (Cross that off, another option damned.) I'd hate to "damage" what little brain you have left. Laughter is all I have left to give you.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    You are a whiney old nun waiting for heben. So you can roil in da gory of da load. Yawn!

    • Publion says:

      On the 9th at 312PM: not only an epithet but an oddly irrelevant one: in what way am I “reactionary”?

      But it is quite possible that what we are seeing in this bit is a variation on a familiar theme: the conflating and confusing of the personal and the political. To wit: the personal characteristics of the Abusenik are wrapped up in the ‘flag’ – as it were – of the political views which the Abusenik has adopted.

      Thus JR is a “progressive”. If – as he seems to have inferred for himself – some of his personal aspects are coming to close to light, then there is – as we see here – a quick reversion away from the (at the moment inconvenient and uncongenial) ‘personal’ and toward the political (i.e. I am a “reactionary”).

      And therefore anybody who disagrees or doesn’t buy his stuff is a “reactionary” (which, as noted, quickly distracts and derails the topic from the ‘personal’ to the ‘political’).

      Nor is this particular dodge in any way unique to JR; any competent clinician or psychologically astute observer would recognize it as familiar.

      And therefore also, thinking back to that bit from JR several threads ago: we were informed that if (however he came to the conclusion) there are readers who would prefer that he move on from this site, then it is the responsibility of the readers here to make ‘fake’ progressive outlets (such as National Catholic Reporter) remove their ban on his commenting.

      Because – doncha see? – JR is the only real true and actual ‘progressive’. Thus, neatly, his being banned by most sites and outlets is neither his fault nor the result of any personal characteristics or tics; it is due to the fact that most sites and outlets of a progressive nature are only fake progressives (although how that becomes the responsibility of the readership here to solve … is still a stretch).

      And I note again that all of this sort of thing would have come out in any adversarial examination on the stand – which is why the Stampede and tortie plan generally sought to avoid trials wherever possible: a ‘victim’ would look a lot less appetizing (and ‘empathetic’ and perhaps even credible) if this type of material came to light in front of a jury.

      Well, that reason and the fact that there was a lot more money to be reliably had via the lawsuit-settlement route than by the trial route.

      Everyone has “sequelae”, no doubt. But by that very point, if we follow the ‘logic’ here, then who can “judge” anyone? Who, for example, can judge an entire Church?

      And some sequelae, by their very nature or by the cumulative impact of their concentrated and combined dynamics, are more and even much more liable to create a more intense impact than others.

      On then, to the 9th at 317PM:

      Again an epithet, and – as so often – a gender-bendy one.

      The point about my age – based on the television reference – is irrelevant.

      But I am informed that I am – apparently – too old for LSD. As I have said, in my opinion there is no optimum age for using LSD, and given the fact that some of the higher-function areas of the brain (such as the prefrontal cortex) don’t really establish their capacities until the 20s, then– especially in the case of so powerful and unpredictable a drug as LSD – I doubt youth are well-advised to try the stuff.

      But the point in the JR comment seems pretty much irrelevant in the first place anyway.

      But then we see the method in the madness: it all serves to platform yet another epithet, this time about “what little brain [I] have left”. Which can simply stay right up where it was put.

      And then – as so often – a self-serving excuse: given the apparently abyssal condition of my brain, JR – the Wig of Alas and Alack – has nothing more “to give” me except “laughter” (which, by amazing coincidence, is all he can muster in response in the first place anyway). Neat.

      On then to the 9th at 329PM:

      Merely more epithet, and again gender-bendy.

      And – have you been waittttting forrrrr ittttttttt? – JR professes himself merely bored (“Yawn!”).

      But enough entertainment. I’d like to proffer something serious.

      Robert Sapolsky, noted neuro-endocrinologist, and a professor of biology, neuroscience and neurosurgery at Stanford, has an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Twelve Angry Brains: How We Judge Crime Cases” (‘Weekend’ edition of May 9-10, 2015, p. C2 in the print edition).

      In this article he reviews an interesting study (published in the professional scientific journal Nature Neuroscience) conducted by Michael Treadway of Harvard, et al).

      Treadway was interested in the question as to how and why jurors or observers might react positively (and – if you wish – ‘empathetically’) to a story relating a murder or other crime, and why they might react negatively (that is to say, ‘judgmentally’).

      So he hooked up his volunteer subjects to brain-imaging and brain-scanning equipment in order to see what areas of the brain ‘lit up’ and were activated in either the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ scenarios where the subjects were presented with a  story with and without a certain spin that would seek to move them one way or the other.

      The results: both the amygdala (“a brain region that mediates strong negative emotions”) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (“a region central to decision-making”) were activated as the subjects considered the scenario of one man killing another on a hunting trip.

      While the amygdala lit up (indicating strong negative emotion, prejudicial to the man who killed the other man) yet there was a strong counter-push against the wave of negative emotion as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex quickly engaged in order to ‘rein in’ the amygdala’s emotional surge.

      Thus, and as I have often said here, so long as there is a balanced and rational process to assessing stories, then people are – if their brain capacity and function is not otherwise inhibited or deranged or merely not yet fully functional  – almost naturally equipped to take a step back from the amygdalic rush and postpone a literal ‘rush’ to judgment until they have given the matter some further careful assessment.

      But it is precisely the object of propaganda to incite and then harness the amygdalic rush for the manipulators’ particular purposes. And thus to sidestep or weaken the influence of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. (Advertising would seek to incite and manipulate not an amygdalic rush of negative anger and revulsion but rather a surge of positive desire for the ‘product’.)

      Thus Victimism – of which the Stampede in the Catholic Abuse Matter is a variant subset – seeks to do everything possible to i) incite the amygdalic rush by focusing on graphic stories and allegations, while ii) doing everything possible to reduce the influence of peoples’ dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (which would come into play through sustained and rational assessment).

      With the result that, for example, sex-claims are now considered as free-standing ‘evidence’ in and of themselves: if the jurors merely feel moved to accept the story-allegation, then in many jurisdictions that alone is sufficient to convict, even in the absence of corroborating evidence or a coherent story-allegation in the first place.

      Also interesting: in a scenario presented as being an unintentional killing, the volunteer-subjects relied especially heavily on their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in order to generate an empathic response to the accused.

      Which gives a curious and revealing twist to Victimism’s signature insistence that in any such sex-allegations, it is the (presumed without evidence) ‘victim’ who is the only fit object for empathy, while the (presumed without evidence) ‘perp’ is from the get-go an object not at all fit for empathy.

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    I can judge an "entire church". It's easy when they support child rape.

    I can judge you because as an atheist. I am not subject to Jesus' rule to " judge not".

    But since you judge all us victims with NO proof that our claims didn't happen. You don't even qualify as a follower of christ. Awwww!

    So i have no idea who you are other than an apologist for the catholic church and a catholic child rape denier. (Corrections supplied.)

    • Ken W says:

      The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser. 


      I do not have to prove that your abuse did not happen. You have to prove that it did. 


  16. Jim Robertson says:

    Oh with your lack of imagination regarding wit? I wouldn't be talking "brain damage" if I were you.

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    I'm quite sure after seeing the records of McGloin he's still denying what he did to me. It's so much easier "don't cha know"? You would know about denial. It makes it so much easier for you too. Funny how life's never easy for us who were raped.

    • Publion says:

      There’s not much new here.

      In regard to the 11th at 830PM:

      In the first paragraph: JR has neatly constructed an excuse for himself, although to do so he had to create the ‘fact’ that the Church doth “support child rape” (an assertion for which, but of course, he has no supporting evidence whatsoever).

      In the second paragraph: JR has neatly constructed an excuse for himself, although to do so he had to reveal how the whole Abusenik game was supposed to go: being an “atheist”, JR could “judge” anybody he wanted to, while – since they were Christians – nobody who disagreed could “judge” him (or, more accurately, his material). Because – doncha see? – Christians must follow Jesus’ “rule” to “judge not” while atheists don’t have to follow that rule so they can “judge” all they want. (And, but of course, have to be believed.)

      The trick here is the conflation of “assess” and “judge” such that Jesus is supposed to have meant “don’t assess anything lest ye be assessed” – which, if it were accurate, would mean that Jesus forbade Christians from kicking the tires on used-cars and asking questions of used-car salesmen  determined to make a sale.

      Once again we see the toy blocks piled one on top of the other in a just-so construction.

      In the third paragraph: we see once again the variant of the old JR I’m Not/You Are bit. This time around (and it’s not the first time) JR tries to float the presumption that the burden of proof is on those who doubt the story, not on the story-teller to actually proffer proof of the story.

      But that’s not how it works, in law or logic. The person who first proposes X incurs the burden of proof. One does not simply make accusations and then sit back and demand that somebody or anybody who questions the accusation has to provide proof that the accusation isn’t true. The burden of proof is on the accuser or story-teller.

      And – to repeat for the umpteenth time – we deal in the internet modality with Probability, since there is no hard evidence that can be proffered in the internet modality. And in regard to Probability, we consider coherence and plausibility and whether any alternative possibilities might provide more credible explanations for what (few) facts are demonstrably known.

      But – once again back to the carefully piled-up blocks – JR can thus then ‘logically’ conclude that since there is no “proof that our claims didn’t happen” then – have you been waitttting forrrr ittttttt – I (the questioner) “don’t even qualify as a follower of Christ”.

      Readers are welcome to consider what type of mind would actually imagine this bit to be an actual piece of logical deduction or what type of character would try to pass it off as an actual piece of logical deduction.


      In the fourth paragraph: we are back – yet again – to JR’s bit that he doesn’t know who I am. Which, of course, conveniently excuses him from having to deal with my material … or so he would like to think.

      And we also see the old Playbook distraction and dodge: to question the stories automatically makes one “a catholic child rape denier” (correction not supplied). He cannot, of course, provide any (accurate) quotation from me that would support that repellent assertion.

      And we also see the silly inclusion of my “(Corrections supplied)” notation, although no corrections were necessary and none were supplied by JR. But it made for a bit more plop-tossy filler, and for JR that sort of thing fills the bill.

      On, then,  to the 11th at 832PM:

      A one-liner epithet that tries to go for my having “brain damage” (although I did not at any time use that phrase), which he seeks to connect to my having a “lack of imagination” in regard to his “wit”. Which brings us right back to the old JR and Playbook dodge that he is only joking much of the time here and only a “Prussian” would take him seriously. But then again: I haven’t taken much of his material seriously, since so very much of it is – as I have pointed out – highly incoherent, implausible, and hardly credible as it has been proffered here.

      And in order to pull this bit off in the first place, JR has now put himself in the position where he is so often taking umbrage at not being considered credible, when all along – he would have us now believe – he has merely been (fill in the blank: playing, joking, being ‘witty’). What logically prevents any rational person from wondering if his whole story has not been an example of his playing or joking or being ‘witty’?

      Readers may imagine the effect of this dodge on a jury: Oh well, I was just playing and joking and being ‘witty’. The torties were shrewd indeed, realizing that settlement would be far less risky than any adversarial examination in open court.

      And thus to the 13th at 1158AM:

      JR’s speculation as to what “McGloin” is currently thinking or saying is nothing more than that: JR’s speculation. And it is hardly outside the realm of possibility that the man might still deny the allegations and the story for the simple reason that he knows them to be not-veracious.

      But that bit then serves as a platform for another epithet, aimed at me, to the effect that I “would know about denial”. I am quite familiar with “denial” as a psychological phenomenon (and dodge).

      And since JR wants to then deploy his “so much easier” trope, then I will also give it a try: it would be so much easier to deny substantive personal issues by making allegations that – like the “magic bullet” of Dallas fame – serve to explain-away (and thus ‘deny’) all of the problems by blaming them on  something and somebody else.

      This has been the driving dynamic in the Billy Doe case in Philadelphia: third-party observers are to accept that while he may be a drug-damaged (and perhaps drug-wrecked) adult with a hefty panoply of the type of symptoms and sequelae rather predictable in a drug-damaged individual, yet it was all the total and complete result of his allegedly being  sexually-assaulted (which allegation itself, as readers of the Big Trial site will recall, is shot through with numerous and deep credibility and plausibility problems).

      And lastly, the signature effort to conflate and equate “raped” with “statutorily raped”, which has been dealt with many time before here. And which easily qualifies as a further instance of the type of “denial” at issue in all of this.

      All of which leaves the matter pretty much where it was before these recent JR comments went up.

  18. Jim Robertson says:

    You propose the existence of "God" with zero proof. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.

    I told of my rape. I had my witness. I had the consistancy of the truth I was telling. Why would I make this up? I've been telling people what had happened to me since I shook the shame off me and handed it back to the rapist where it justly belonged. I told a shrink in the 70's about my rape. I only kept the secret for about 5 years. I had sworn I'd never tell to Fr. B. Clemens when I was 16 and kept that promise into my early 20's.

    Just because you continue to lie about the word "rape" does not equate to it being "dealt with".

    For you maybe;  but then it's not your life and rape we are talking about. Are we? It's mine.

    You deal with proving your god exists. I've already proven my rape happened. You best hop to it Time is running out for you. We are neck and neck towards life's finish line P rincess. You may make Queen for a day yet.

    If there is a diety; I'll happily place my honesty against yours before your "God" and see who wins.

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    I don't give a fuck about McGloin covering his ass with lies. That's just to be expected. I know what happened; and I'll gladly stand before your "God" with the truth of what happened to me.

  20. Jim Robertson says:

    "Incoherent" really? Maybe to a puffed up dolt like you.

    I corrected the misspellings by you of the word god. No capital G in god. No proof for "God" from you = no capital G.. The word heaven is not capitalized is it? So if it's, god's, imaginary home needs no large h then it's equally imagined resident needs no large g in front of it's imaginary name, now, does it?

    Correction supplied. :^)

    • Publion says:

      Nor are matters moved forward with the most recent batch.

      In regard to the 15th at 1112AM:

      In the first paragraph, we are – yet again – pulled back to a repetition of a dodge that has been dealt with at length here a number of times already. And – to repeat – the existence of God would be a matter involving the Metaplane, and thus is beyond the realm of proof as (Monoplanar) scientific and evidentiary proof is understood. 

      Additionally, the “burden of proof” which had been under discussion was the burden of proof for story-tellers and allegants, which involve allegations of acts very much of the Monoplane and thus that do fall within the realm of proof as scientific and evidentiary proof is understood. 

      Nor am I on this site working on proving the existence of God since this is a site which is dedicated to the Catholic Abuse Matter. So there is no “burden of proof” on me and this oft-deployed dodge of JR’s fails utterly … yet again. Leaving, in the process, the actual burden-of-proof problem where it belongs here, with JR and the Abuseniks generally. 

      While simultaneously leaving us with all of the ‘proof’ problems still demonstrated by the various bits of Abusenik material proffered here.

      In the second paragraph’s first sentence we are – yet again – pulled back to a repetition of a dodge that has been dealt with at length here a number of times already: JR attempts to conflate the ‘personal’ and the ‘public’ in an effort to claim that his personal ‘knowledge’ constitutes public knowledge as well – which it does not at all. 

      In the second paragraph’s second sentence we are – yet again – pulled back to a repetition of a dodge that has been dealt with at length here a number of times already: JR had no “witness” to his alleged (statutory) rape; we have already established that he had only a “witness” to the fact that he told his story to an administrator, making that “witness” only a witness to the telling of the story, but not a witness to the alleged statutory rape, about which that person would have only hearsay status, which is not evidentiary or dispositive. And on top of all that, in a recent comment, JR tried the route of dispensing with the witness altogether and simply reduced his encounter with the administrator to a he said/he said sort of thing. So we are left – yet again – with an incoherent story whose variant tellings are mutually contradictory. 

      In the second paragraph’s third sentence we are – yet again – pulled back to a repetition of a dodge that has been dealt with at length here a number of times already: that JR’s variant tellings (the number of such statutory rapes, his age at the time of the alleged perpetration(s), the various persons who did or did not agree that they had been informed) do not at all support a characterization of “consistency” (correction supplied). 

      In the second paragraph’s fourth sentence we are – yet again – pulled back to a repetition of a dodge that has been dealt with at length here a number of times already: JR – wearing for this performance the Wig of Injured Innocence – plaints “Why would I make this up?”. And since he asks, I would venture the following answer: vengeance, an effort to distract from his own responsibility for his academic performance, and – decades later – a chance at a whole bunch of money. And I note also that I have explained at length my suppositions on this site in regard to those possibilities.

      In the second paragraph’s fifth sentence we are – yet again – pulled back to a repetition of a dodge that has been dealt with at length here a number of times already: the fact that he “has been telling” this story for a while can simply indicate that he vengefulness and willingness to seek any excuse that would excuse himself for his own performance were glommed-onto at an early date, and the prospect of a whole lotta cash was glommed-onto at a later date, but still quite some time ago (i.e. when the Anderson Strategies had reached sufficient critical mass to make it worthwhile to do so). 

      And I would also offer the correction to his characterization: the person who allegedly perpetrated the sexual-assault is – at best – characterizable as a ‘statutory rapist’. (Referring, I imagine it has to be said, to the first perpetrator (presumably McGloin), since in some tellings there appears to have been a second instance and perhaps a second alleged perpetrator). 

      And I note the deployment of the classic Victimist and tortie trope as to having ‘shaken’ “the shame off me”. 

      In the second paragraph’s sixth sentence we are given yet another new bit: JR had seen “a shrink” anywhere from a decade to almost two decades after the alleged act was supposed to have taken place. This – presuming its veracity – once again simply goes to demonstrate the early-onset fixity of the strategy glommed-onto to deal with the problems of performance in the high-school years. And there remains no indication of what prompted the visit to the “shrink”. 

      In the second paragraph’s seventh sentence we are given a clear example of the ‘inconsistency’ JR claims does not exist in his various presentations: He claimed he had told the administrator (variously with or without a “witness”) very soon after the alleged act took place, so he had not “kept the secret for about 5 years”. 

      But the “secret” or ‘secret-shame’ trope is a signature trope of the Victimist script and – apparently – had to be shoehorned in somehow. 

      In the second paragraph’s eighth sentence – grammatically lacking in clear sense as written – we are proffered some sort of oath (“sworn” – whatever that might mean here). To-whom or about-what the oath was concerned … is not at all clear.

      And in any case, JR reveals that his working definition of “never” worked out to something short of “5 years” (from the age of “16” to his “early 20s”). 

      In the third paragraph we are given – yet again – the epithet that I do somehow “lie” “about the word ‘rape’”. But – yet again and so very characteristically – we get no explication or quotation that would explain the substance of my alleged “lie”. Surely I am not lying to point out that the actions he described qualify only as “statutory rape”; and is it not rather a lie to claim that a ‘statutory rape’ is actually a ‘rape’ as classically defined and understood in general language usage and legal language usage? 

      Nor has he “dealt with” that problem, which problem I have pointed out numerous times previously. 
      In the fourth paragraph he then changes tack and seeks to characterize my above concern as being merely my own, and not constitutive of a clear and objective problem with his proffered material. 

      And he seeks slyly to work in the presumption of his “rape” (statutory or otherwise) as if it were a demonstrated fact, conflating yet again the ‘personal’ and the ‘public’, ‘objective’ truth. But is it not ‘personal’ truth we are dealing with here, rather than any clearly demonstrated objective and public truth? 

      Then – as if somehow seeking to bolster the credibility of his own proffers – he shifts (distracts?) from these very real allegations on the Monoplane to – yet again – the question of ‘proving’ the existence of God. Because – doncha see? – if he somehow has put forward a non-provable claim (about his statutory rape), but we here have also put forward a non-provable claim (about the existence of God) then – in his idea of ‘logic’ – it is a draw. 

      But this dodge won’t work because while his allegations are very much matters on the Monoplane, the existence of God (which nobody here I can recall has ever attempted to ‘prove’ dispositively) is very much a matter of the Metaplane, and not of the Monoplane. So the dodge here fails, as it has all the previous times that he attempted to deploy it. 

      Nor will it work in the fifth paragraph where he seeks to continue the dodge in the first sentence. 
      Nor in the second sentence where he slyly (although at this point almost ludicrously) attempts to get us to take for granted that he has “already proven [his] rape happened” … which is most surely not the case. 
      And in the third sentence he seeks to solidify that non-existent achievement by waxing uncharacteristically poetic: Time is running out for him and me – apparently – so … what?

      And we get – as so very very often when he’s got nothing else – a queasy gender-bendy epithet. 
      Which is followed in the fourth sentence by another uncharacteristically neat rhetorical flourish by recalling the ‘Queen for a Day’ TV reference I recently made by turning it into – have you been waittttting forrr ittttttttttttt? – another queasy gender-bendy epithet. 

      And in the final paragraph of the comment, again donning the Wig of Cassandra, he will try to predict the future when (in the precincts of the Metaplane) he will have to accept responsibility for his “honesty” before a judge and court after all. 

      But this is just another version of his reading of his personal tea-leaves and the actual outcome, being rather certain, can be awaited for its eventual though sure arrival. 

      But we also see the inconsistent and incoherent corner into which he has painted himself here: while on the one hand he does not hold with the existence of God, he yet cannot pass up the opportunity to toss in a final epithet by using the presumed existence of that “God” to make a predictive epithet against me. 

      Again, I note for the readership that my interest here is in continuing to assess the various Playbook elements and give an example of how to deal with them if they are encountered. 

      On then to the 15th at 1116AM: 

      In the first sentence, we get (aside from the juvenile scatology) merely an assertion about the accused’s “lies”. With no explication it remains merely an assertion. 

      Further, we are informed in the second sentence that “That’s just to be expected”. But this gambit cuts both ways. It is easily possible that all of JR’s history in this matter is “just to be expected” from someone vengeful and averse to personal responsibility for school (and perhaps life) failures, who was offered through the dynamics of the Stampede a chance to get a whole bunch of money. This explanatory possibility is completely congruent with the various elements of his proffered material and might equally as easily and logically be characterized as “just to be expected”. The readership may consider as they will.
      And the comment concludes with a repeat of the “God” prediction that was dealt with above.

      Thus to the 15th at 1127AM:

      In the first paragraph: merely an epithet to the effect that his material being “incoherent” is nothing more than the opinion of “a puffed up dolt like [me]”. The readership may consider it as they will.

      Then a riff on how he (the Wig of Exasperated Competence) has had to correct my “misspellings of the word god”. And the readership – if so inclined – may also consider that riff as they will. 

      And on the 16th at 1132AM he will simply assert that the Catholic Church doesn’t deserve capitalization either. Which is his opinion and can be left right where it was put. 

      And that’s it for the current batch. 

  21. Jim Robertson says:

    The catholic church does not deserve to be capitalized either; on every level. :^)

  22. Jim Robertson says:

    A 16 year old,, who's been criminally attacked sexually, promises a priest ,who he's trusted, to end the abuse, to keep the rape a secret. An illigitimate oath that was sworn to said priest (Clemmons) by me just to be done with the whole disaster.  Thinking that ending the abuse was ending the problem.

    And you dare to use my realization that my keeping the secret was stupid in my early 20's (when by the way I could have and should have sued the church then but didn't) as a way of showing me to be what? Immoral? You are incredulous. It was stupid of me to keep the secret because the shame I feared, belonged to McGloin and Clemmons not to me.

    Just as the shameless shit you write here reflects you to be the immoral scumbag that you are.

    • Publion says:

      In attempting to get control of his ‘narrative’ yet again, JR (the 18th at 955AM) demonstrates precisely the problems that he would rather we (and he) not look at closely.

      In the first paragraph:

      In the first sentence, we have the varying age (16 or 17, or even earlier) at which – in different versions – JR was supposed to have had this experience.

      Second – curiously – there is now the more accurate phrase “criminally attacked sexually” (allegedly, anyway) but that is then quickly followed by “the rape” (which is not legally or conceptually accurate, as has been explained in prior comments many times).

      In the second sentence (following on a bit in the first sentence) we are now informed – after all this time – that JR had taken “an illegitimate oath” sworn to the alleged perp. There is however a different name, this time – but if this was the second time, with McGloin being the first, then the whole ‘uncomprehending innocence’ meme falls apart; and if this was the first time – at age 16 – then what are we to make of what would then have to be a second instance with McGloin? And if this “Clemmons” was the administrator, then what can be made of that, in light of the documentary material indicating that the administration judged JR’s allegation to be some sort of vengeance and retribution against a teacher in whose class JR was performing poorly?

      And are we to imagine a scenario in which a formal “oath” was taken, or is this merely hyperbole to histrionically dramatize the action in the scene?

      And we get an excuse for why JR did not go any further with the matter: he wanted “just to be done with the disaster”; this excuse neatly covers the fact that JR took no further action (a classic Victimist and Playbook dodge to cover the lack of action taken at the time of the alleged perpetration).

      But that was OK – doncha see? – because this (alleged) act was “a disaster”. The Victimist Playbook requires ‘disasters’ in order to distract from the gaps in the stories. And you can’t expect anybody to behave rationally, coherently, and credibly in a “disaster”. Neat.

      And the paragraph concludes with the third sentence, which is a neat shoehorning of a Victimist mantra and sound-bite about “thinking that ending the abuse was ending the problem”. To which I would only add that if “the problem” pre-existed the (alleged) abuse, then of course “ending the abuse” was most surely not going to “end the problem”.

      In the first sentence of the second paragraph, we get an effort to distract from the “shrink” matter: the Wig of Insulted Innocence doth histrionically demand of me ‘How “dare” you?’. Harrumph indeed. But I am simply trying to follow the claimed bits here and connect them in some rational and coherent and credible way.

      Nor could JR have “sued the Church” with any real expectation of prevailing at trial in the late 1960s or early 1970s (on top of the fact that he – and any tortie he might have approached at that time – knew that the basic ballpark figure was going to be just north of ten thousand dollars). But once the Anderson Strategies hit the bigtime in LA with a 500-plaintiff lawsuit, then that ten-twelve thousand became a million, without any risk whatsoever of taking this ‘narrative’ to trial and risking far more analysis than it has received here. And thus the show could go on.

      And – the second sentence – just what all this doth “show” about JR is for the readership to consider. JR himself has suggested “immoral” and while I think that characterization is somewhat incomplete, we might at least use it as a baseline for openers.

      Nor did I characterize JR as “stupid” at any point in my comment. Indeed, I would say that there is a certain undeniable shrewdness in a great deal of his material.

      In the second paragraph’s third sentence JR is completely accurate in characterizing me as “incredulous”. Although it is hardly beyond possibility that he meant the epithetical ‘incredible’ instead.

      And in the fourth sentence – where I do not accept the brush-off excuse of “stupid” as if it explained all the problems in the story by this point – we are given the names (apparently) of both alleged assaulters.

      Although we have never been given a single comprehensive time-line for these alleged assaults, apparently Clemmons came first at age 16 (or – in the variant telling – 17) and McGloin later; if this is not so, then how would JR have taken an “oath” to Clemmons or in regard to Clemmons but not to the previous McGloin? But if McGloin is the second and came later than age 16 (or 17) then what are we to make of that?

      One can only imagine how any of this would have fared on the stand under adversarial examination.

      But, shrewdly and in best Playbook form, this whole questionabe bit ends with a quick re-focus on the (we are to presume) guilt and “shame” of McGloin and Clemmons (with McGloin now first on the list).

      Thus: Don’t try to figure out the practical and the factual – instead, just go with the guilt and shame of the (alleged) perps. That would be the desired take-away for readers.

      And the third paragraph is merely a collection of juvenile epithets, apparently in the hope that they will further serve to distract from analysis.

      Whether the epithets might also be further revelations through the wonders of clinical projection … I leave to the readership for consideration.

  23. Jim Robertson says:

    What a sack u r.

    Where did I ever say I was 17 when abused? you liar. I was born in 1947. I wasabused by McGloin in 1963. I'd just turned 16; which is what I've always said.

    You work so hard to make me out o be what you are: a liar. Statuatory rape is still rape, stupid.

    • Publion says:

      With all the questions that might be answered, JR (the 22nd at 1143AM) will focus on the age he was when abused. On the 16th of April at 1240PM he wrote “Just over two years after my abuse I was a 19 year old” so I drew the conclusion that he was 17. He wants to say now that he was 16 (on the basis of that “just over” bit).

      OK then. He was 16 but apparently almost 17.

      That would put the McGloin abuse in his Sophomore or Junior year (which academic year was it?). And was that the first abuse or the second (he had previously referred to his “abusors”, as in plural)?

      And when was that “oath” then sworn? And to whom?

      And who was Clemmons – one of the plural “abusors” or somebody else? If Clemmons was an administrator and not one of the “abusors”, then was he the same administrator whose written material appears in the released cache, indicating that he thought the whole claim was some form of revenge for being given poor grades in a science course of some sort … but then why would Clemmons want an “oath” sworn?

      And when was the incident of abuse that was implied in the plural ‘abusors”? Was it before or after the McGloin incident?

      And – while we’re on the subject, since JR feels his veracity is in question:  to which incident of abuse is the loss of mathematical and scientific chops to be ascribed? And to which incident (or the same incident somehow) is the loss of the word-based cognitive skills and capacities supposed to be ascribed? And how was the rubbing incident supposed to have created such complex, global, and apparently permanent damage? And if there was a second incident, in what did it consist? And if there was only a single incident, then where does “abusors” in the plural come from? All of these are questions already raised about which JR has “never said” anything responsive.

      It is not really “hard” at all to raise the questions, and it is the problems with the material – with no “work” on my part – that create the veracity issue here.

      And – for the umpteenth time – “statutory rape” is not “rape” classically defined (penetration of an unwilling subject) but rather is a term applied merely on the basis of the age of the unwilling person, and not on the basis of the nature of the act. The same act, applied to an adult unwilling person, would not qualify as “rape” but as a lesser form of sexual assault.

      Thus to claim that “statutory rape is still rape” (correction supplied) is not accurate and – in light of the number of times this has been explained – does raise the “stupid” issue or else the ‘manipulation’ issue, but it involves the veracity issue either way.