If the facts favor your position, argue the facts.
If the law favors your position, argue the law.
If neither the facts nor the law favor your position, pound the table.
Ms. Manning pounds the table with a hysterical claim that is not accompanied
by any documentation. In bold, red letters, Ms. Manning claims that the testimony
posted on this Web site contains a serious breach of a child's privacy. Note,
however, that Ms. Manning did not provide a page number or any details. That
is because every single place where any child's first and last name is listed
together in the testimony on this site, the last name is (and always has) been
blacked out after the first letter.
Ms. Manning's inflated claim actually boils down to the fact that someone with very detailed knowledge of the case-someone who undoubtedly would already know the last names, including children not named in the complaint-could figure out one of those children's identity from other facts in the case. (That single file was changed on 9/25 to make it even harder for anyone to make the connection that Ms. Manning called to people's attention with mock shock on 9/24. Remember: Ms. Manning savaged these families and claimed that their abused children had not been abused-medical evidence including anal scarring notwithstanding.) But nothing on this Site violates anyone's privacy rights, nor does any single place in the transcript identify a child's first and last name. Ms. Manning is apparently trying to divert attention from the fact that she has no response to the detailed and documented critiques contained in this Site. Instead, she is pounding the table-with red herrings.
Further deflating Ms. Manning's hysterical claim that there was something "reckless" about the posting of this testimony are two facts that she neglects to mention: (1) the child at issue was not implicated in any of the acts in this case. His involvement in the case was peripheral. (2) The transcript in this case is a public document; and the parties did not ask the court for the kind of protective order that exists in, say, the Kelly Michaels case. Nevertheless, all of the testimony contained on this Site has been redacted such that every time a child's first name is mentioned, the last name, if it is mentioned, is blacked out. That has been true from the day this site was first activated (9/20).
Finally, it should noted that Ms. Manning's own Web site contains a link to an article about the Keller case in Texas that uses the last name of all three families whose children were involved in a sexual abuse case. (None of the similarly situated children in this case are ever so identified on this Site.) Apparently, Ms. Manning's professed concern for the privacy of the children evaporates if the children are being impugned. It is only when the errors in her own work are being pointed out that Ms. Manning suddenly wants to switch the topic to privacy.