“Ok, so we have a liberal lawyer claiming the child was abused,”
Yeah, that was LeGrande.
“Not that she might have some motive, to claim a child of a conservative sect was abused - was the the child homeschooled, hmmm?”
Odd preface that has nothing to do with the actual question.
From what I have read, the children are given homeschooling, at or above (more likely above) the equivalent public school education, for their age. But only up to a certain age. Then they are put to work.
“That is prima facia evidence of abuse, nicht wahr?”
Good homeschooling is not prima facie evidence of anything but responding to a difficult situation with the best solution.
“The kid says the lawyer is putting words in her mouth. The Lawyer says the kid is intimidated, by the church elders et al. I have no idea where the truth lies.
That seems to be most people’s opinion, after digesting the article, and any supporting links, and the comments on here.
It’s a he said/she said/(and she said)/and she was gone situation, and it’s kind of a tossup as to who is telling the truth.
I think that those posters who said the lawyer might be letting thoughts of her career ‘cloud her judgment’, may have a good point.
She has an illustrious (successful) past, and plenty of experience. But this particular case, and the other two girls she is ‘attorney ad litem’ for, might be the ‘cream of the crop’.
Maybe she wants to be the ‘attorney’ who is involved in this.
BTW, you may have been posing those questions to LeGrande, instead of me, and if so, then surely you will (or this will) let him know.
Idle musings - thinking out loud.
The point was, there are two completely different ways to interpret the lawyer/client/flds spat, either of which may be entirely true.
I have no idea which is.
Come to think of it, it is possible that BOTH are true.