Oregonian taking a lot of heat from readers for this one. What do you think?

You claim that his poor performance was due to his guilt. That is using it as evidence. You can play the game of semantics all you want, but that's what you did. It was a ridiculous claim and at least you have the sense to back away from it.

If I had to guess, I'd guess he was guilty, too. The difference is I know that we don't really know either way. You don't.

 

There is a big fat difference between a 6 year old telling a fib and "my uncle stuck his fingers up where I pee and it really hurt." And then sticking with that story though a long, shitty process.

And from a quick bit of research, studies suggest about 10% of child sex abuse claims are false. Of those 10%, a tiny fraction started with the child. The vast majority originated with a parent.

Kids make up a lot of stuff... but not this.

 

That's quite a line. Wonder if anybody could get away with that one today.

 

Yeah, that was like 18 years ago. My wife and I laughed at the time (I think she said 'half' instead of '50%' now that i think about it)

 

At this point Heimlich might be at a better point as a UDFA than if he'd been ever drafted on the second day. He did lose Game 1, but he did get there.

 

We do know. He's guilty by his own words and plea. If you believe otherwise, you probably believe in unicorns and Santa Clause, too. There is no actual "evidence" other than the testimony from the niece and his plea. That's enough for me. The rest is between them and their maker.

 

Playing devil's advocate, a person at that age could make a guilty plea for any number of reasons. They have been documented in this thread already so I won't repeat. If he did it, he's been shamed publicly and will never live that down. That should satisfy your thirst for justice.

 

What type of clause is Santa? Dependent? He does need all those elves.

 

He's an essential clause. But only until you're 10.

 

It’s interesting, to one, the skeptical mind believes a person would never falsely admit to something horrible to save their own skin.

To others, the skeptical mind thinks of course someone might take that stigma to avoid the risk of physical danger.

PC has already made the point. He thinks the risk of physical harm to one’s kid doesn’t outweigh the stigma despite the assurances of the court it’s just about sealed if he keeps his nose clean. You feel avoiding the potential of jail (as a child molester) isn’t enough motivation for someone to say/do many things. And to you, that makes you the realist here.

We are truly at a beautiful impass.

 

This has been explained to you many times. Plenty of innocent people plead guilty and this was a 15-year-old kid who was promised he could come out on the other side clean or risk going to jail and go through a trial that could tear his family apart.

You want neat and tidy. You want something to hate. You don't care about the truth. Now you are going for the personal attack because your argument can't stand on its merits. You made a terrible point regarding his failure in a game and you claim knowledge that you don't have.

The real truth is we don't know if he is guilty or not. Maybe he is and he should have been punished far more harshly. Maybe he isn't, and his life is permanently damaged unjustly. The difference between us is I actually know what I don't know.