Print

• cfjango - 08 Sep

Online Users 17 Guests, 7 Users
sloppyjo, runner76, cateyes, cfjango, Hometown Girl, kdawg3, Just Wondering

[seabiscuit]

Here's what I posted on KP:

Here's a summary of the denials from Panda's Thumb:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/freshwater-dec-1.html#more

Freshwater denied a wide array of allegations from previous testimony and the investigators’ report. He dened teaching creationism or intelligent design, denied teaching thermodynamics, denied disparaging Catholics, denied referring to the Bible in class in connection with homosexuality, denied that he directed students to AIG’s site, denied praying with students, denied marking crosses on students with the Tesla coil, denied contacting speakers for FCA, denied saying in class that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible, denied ever endangering or harming students, denied that he has taught beyond what is appropriate to teach in his class, and denied that he ever made a direct challenge to evolution in his classes.

He claimed that his 2003 proposal to the district to adopt the Intelligent Design Network’s “Objective Origins Policy” was not an effort to introduce ID into the classrooms, but was an effort to teach more evolution and to perform critical analysis of evolution, moving the 10th grade biology standard down to the 8th grade. Hamilton tried to portray that proposal as not being exclusively intelligent design by pointing to a couple of other sources Freshwater cited, including www.sciohio.org. Unfortunately for Hamilton, that’s the site of what billed itself at that time (2003) as the Ohio affiliate of the Intelligent Design Network. Predictably, Freshwater also mentioned the so-called Santorum amendment.

There is, of course, contradictory sworn testimony on almost all of those points from one or more witnesses. Of most interest is that there is contradictory testimony on at least one of those from Freshwater himself.

So a bit over a year ago Freshwater agreed under oath that the pictures were accurate depictions of Zachary’s arm and that he had put a mark that he characterized as an “X” on Zachary’s arm. Now under oath he denies his previous sworn testimony. (This is the same issue on which he invoked his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination during his deposition for the Dennis family’s federal suit.)

The interesting thing about his denial regarding ID and teaching religious ideology in the classroom is that it would seem that he was turning his back on the fundamentalist Christian backing which has been so strong during this entire process.

Regarding Freshwater's claim that all witnesses testifying were lying, R. Kelly Hamilton pretty much asked John about each witness and whether or not he felt they were telling the truth or lying.  There's nothing subjective on my part when John's answer to each of Hamilton's inquiries regarding each witness was that they were lying.

[seabiscuit]

I do believe that Freshwater has convinced himself that he has done no wrong whatsoever. At this point in time he could probably pass any lie detector test in believing that he is completely blameless. Sad. In knowing Freshwater for so many years, and always feeling he was a good guy and a fine teacher, it is very sad to see where he was back then to where he has come now. Too bad Freshwater did not count his losses before the Rally on the Square, do the simple things he was asked, and move on. Now all that's left in all of this is the Theater of the Absurd and broken pieces of broken lives.

I do agree that John truly believes himself to be "not at fault".  And I do find it sad that he chose to take the course of action that he did.  I believe he thought he had a cause that everyone else in town believed in.  I think it has been difficult for him to accept that the backing that he had at the rally on the square is no longer there.

[Airborne]

These MRI's also show that close to 80% of crime victims cannot identify the perp...that how the cops present the data actually makes the victim "perceive" the criminal is who the cops want it to be...lid coming off this scam...this year

Um, I used to teach that at the college level starting back when Elizabeth Loftus' systematic research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony started coming out in the mid-1970s.  And you know what?  There are ways of mitigating those perceptual effects, starting with being aware that they occur.  You seem to be suggesting that there's no way to avoid blinding bias in perception, when in fact one can mitigate it, if not completely eliminate it.  Read through my Panda's Thumb reports.  You'll find that they're reasonably objective, though I do allow myself some editorial comments.  In addition, I have a slew of the court reporter's transcripts of the testimony (4 Megs of zipped transcripts), and I have checked several of my reports against that record.  They pretty accurately represent what the court recorder's transcript says the testimony was, so I have some independent corroboration of the reliability of my reports and, by extension, my perceptions.

(Oh, and part of the way cops screw with witnesses is by inducing false memories by using appropriately worded questions.  That was one of Loftus' first papers, published in 1975 if I recall correctly.)

my works are made pssobile by 2009 technology..not from the era of the amc pacer..but thanks for playing

[ClockStopper]

I assume that this was Airborne's comment, though it was inside the quote box:

my works are made pssobile by 2009 technology..not from the era of the amc pacer..but thanks for playing

Point is, 2009 technology is confirming and elaborating on what we've known for over 30 years.

Your notion that we are the prisoners of our idiosyncratic perceptions, pushed to a not-very-extreme limit, implies that no shared knowledge is possible.  I recommend that you read up on relativism and perception.

Sure, our perceptions are subject to distortion by pre-existing knowledge and attitudes, but that is not inevitable; as I remarked, there are ways of mitigating those distortions.  One I noted above: checking one's perceptions against another reference, in this case the court reporter's record.  Unless you're willing to argue that the court reporter's record is similarly flawed, you have to concede that one can reduce the effects of bias by doing that.

[Airborne]

First off, your perceptions of what I posted are wrong...secondly your perceptions of John the teacher are influenced by your dislike for him....and the fact is you did not "check" or "mitigate" your perceptions about the hearings prior to posting here...you did not know to check...that is the issue with perceptions.

[wastintime]

This is getting interesting again. 

[ClockStopper]

First off, your perceptions of what I posted are wrong...secondly your perceptions of John the teacher are influenced by your dislike for him....and the fact is you did not "check" or "mitigate" your perceptions about the hearings prior to posting here...you did not know to check...that is the issue with perceptions.

First, as a matter of fact, I don't dislike John Freshwater.  He and I have some shared life experiences, and I have no malice toward him as a person.

Second, for someone who seems to believe that one's perceptions are wholly determined by one's prior biases and attitudes, you sure seem certain about what I do and know.  But surely on your own account, your claims about me are purely the product of your own biases and attitudes and are unaffected by evidence.

Third, I did 'check' prior to posting here.  I've worked in applied and pure science for over 40 years, and that's the habit of mind one is trained for in science: check, recheck, seek independent evidence, test it, rinse and repeat.

[cateyes]

chickenshit...Airborne...is that a military term.....I have to laugh..so many veterans I know use that word...as well as saying stupid people..

Anyway as it has been said...what ever John did wrong..IF he did something wrong..it was NOT documented by the managment...so it does NOTexist...there is no past evidence of wrong doing.

So now..he is only doing what he has legal rights to do...defend himself....

It upsets me that so many..are gripping about his due process....yes it is costing us BIG BUCKS..thanks to administraion of past not doing their jobs.....but it is still his legal right....America is set apart from all other nations...because we also have a different legal system..tho is is flawed..it is still greater than any other.

[Airborne]

Yep, I guess what pisses me off the most is people like CM and her girlfriend seabisquit wants to give f'kin terrorists the rights of citizens but then deny actual citizens basic contract rights....

[seabiscuit]

cateyes

I don't think the majority are griping about his due process.  It has been upsetting to watch the delay tactics that have been used by R. Kelly Hamilton which have caused this hearing to continue for so long.   It has also been frustrating to watch him project onto and blame others for tactics that he has used from the beginning.   I, too, have been frustrated with the referee who I feel has done nothing to reign in the delays so that this process could be completed in a timely manner.   

At this point, the Federal Lawsuit will be completed before this administrative hearing is completed.  Even the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case in Dover, PA only went from September 26, 2005, to November 4, 2005 with a decision made in December of the same year.   

The reasons behind this lengthy hearing can only be speculated on but if R. Kelly Hamilton felt like he had a strong case from the beginning, the case would have not taken this long to present.   Due process does not mean that it must take almost 2 years for the case to be heard.

[cateyes]

   Seabiscuit...due process does involve delays...that is a norm in  court proceeding....it is up to the referee to make decsion if delays are out of order...that is part of the system..but he too must be very careful not to interfer or it could cause more legal issues..

  I am not as knowledgable about this type of hearing as I am about normal court proceeding...but the referee must be allowing what is taking place for some legal reason....if not..I hope he does what can be done within his duty.

 Do please remember...tho we may not like how long this has been in the court...it still is due process. And in truth...the case has not been in the hearing room all this time...delays just have caused it to be over many months time.. ...Courtroom time available. affects when a hearing is rescheduled.

The other day I was at the courtroom...and multi cases were being addressed...pretrials were not in the courtroom..they were being done in another room..as the courtroom was in session of another case.

and remember too...some very LARGE cases drag out for YEARS...

 

[seabiscuit]

cateyes

This hearing is not a court hearing nor is it at the courthouse.  It's at the commissioner's office in the old Mercy Hospital bldg.   The delays have nothing to do with other "hearings" taking place.  Once it was clearly because R. Kelly Hamilton hadn't done his depositions because when the hearing was rescheduled, all of the depositions he put into evidence where noted in the hearing to be taken on the day that the hearing was originally supposed to resume.  In otherwords, he was meeting with witnesses on a day the hearing had been scheduled to occur.  He obviously didn't meet with the witnesses in the weeks or days between hearing dates.

I understand court delays but this has been a joke.  I've attended all but 2 dates of this hearing and can tell you that the referee could do more to keep this moving along.  In my years of working with the court system while involved in Children's Services and other professional dealings with court systems, I've never seen such a fiasco as this has been.  There's truly no reason other than mismanagement for this hearing to have taken this long.  As busy as a Federal Court system is, it will be very telling if that hearing finishes before this hearing is completed.

[cateyes]

  I know it is not a court hearing...forget what they call it...and I did forget it is in the commissioners offices...which should not be so difficult to schedule it.

 There is still laws over this...even in normal hearings...attorneys mess up..you know that Sea..but the court allows a lot of BS for justice sake....but I have heard more than one hearing officer or judge warn an attorney to get it together.

 I really wish I knew more of the law that this hearing is to follow...so I would understand more if there is real cause of the time frame...or just another game played in this community.

cateyes

This hearing is not a court hearing nor is it at the courthouse.  It's at the commissioner's office in the old Mercy Hospital bldg.   The delays have nothing to do with other "hearings" taking place.  Once it was clearly because R. Kelly Hamilton hadn't done his depositions because when the hearing was rescheduled, all of the depositions he put into evidence where noted in the hearing to be taken on the day that the hearing was originally supposed to resume.  In otherwords, he was meeting with witnesses on a day the hearing had been scheduled to occur.  He obviously didn't meet with the witnesses in the weeks or days between hearing dates.

I understand court delays but this has been a joke.  I've attended all but 2 dates of this hearing and can tell you that the referee could do more to keep this moving along.  In my years of working with the court system while involved in Children's Services and other professional dealings with court systems, I've never seen such a fiasco as this has been.  There's truly no reason other than mismanagement for this hearing to have taken this long.  As busy as a Federal Court system is, it will be very telling if that hearing finishes before this hearing is completed.

[seabiscuit]

I get the sense that this may be one of a few cases this gentleman has sat in on as a referee.  At times, it appears that he is giving much latitude so that there will be less likelihood of an appeal once the decision is rendered.  I've been involved in numerous court cases where parental rights have been terminated and they have taken no longer than 2 weeks and I consider that to be an extremely important court case that should be provide a tremendous amount of evidence and explore many avenues before rights are terminated.  I never had an abuse or neglect case that took longer than a week   I honestly can't think of why this needs to take this long except for possible inexperience of the referee. 

 

[cateyes]

 That is what he should be doing...getting it as correct as can be NOW to avoid an appeal.

Parental rights and abuse is NOT a good compare to me....... it is MANY times before a parents rights are taken. So tho they may have a short time in court...there are SEVERAL times in court thru years many times.

Also court hearings...many have good/proper evidence submitted to help move the court ability to have a descion quicker.

Inexprience, maybe the issue. As I said...I wish I knew more of the law that oversees this type of action. What can be done on the behalf of the referee and what can not...but be within proper law. Without true knowledge of the law that covers this...no way to really know what the referee is doing right or wrong..reguardless of time involved.

I get the sense that this may be one of a few cases this gentleman has sat in on as a referee.  At times, it appears that he is giving much latitude so that there will be less likelihood of an appeal once the decision is rendered.  I've been involved in numerous court cases where parental rights have been terminated and they have taken no longer than 2 weeks and I consider that to be an extremely important court case that should be provide a tremendous amount of evidence and explore many avenues before rights are terminated.  I never had an abuse or neglect case that took longer than a week   I honestly can't think of why this needs to take this long except for possible inexperience of the referee.