Time4Truth wrote:Copied from
'Aurien' in the 'Christian Aid Scandal' forum.....fitting for this forum as well:
"I think it's worth reading the comments that Kris Kramer left on Trudy's February 7th blog post."
https://splash4ripples.com/2020/02/07/p ... Ma4nZSWlpk
This morning I added a comment (might still be waiting for moderation) to this blog:
When a + b Doesn’t = c
I am aware that some folks believe that:
a Daniel’s “mentally ill” mother Anna Mary brainwashed him into believing he was sexually
abused.
+
b The nature of Daniel’s mother’s death (unautopsied) proves beyond doubt her mental illness.
=
c Daniel’s claims of sexual molestation by his father are illegitimate.
However, I, Daniel’s sister and Anna Mary’s daughter have no recollection of our mother referencing Daniel’s molestation by his father Harold before Daniel disclosed it a letter to his family in 1990. Daniel has no recollection of discussing his abuse with Anna Mary prior to 1990.
Harold’s initial response to the 1990 allegations was to frame Daniel for being unstable and to blame Daniel’s therapist for putting self-deceptive ideas into Daniel’s head. By 1999 Harold had shifted the blame and framed his estranged wife for fabricating the allegations.
It is of curiosity to me what pay off folks fixated on the nature of Daniel’s mother’s death (as a way to disregard his abuse accounts) believe that Daniel, a now 60-year-old who graduated from Georgetown University Law Center with a stellar record of having excelled in professional positions requiring utmost skills and abilities in critical thinking, would derive from touting delusions from his mother deceased for twelve years. Would one of you from this school of thought be so kind as to explain your position to me?
Thank You,
Freda Herr