Menken Dissembles

I suppose he saw my post, because today Yaakov Menken is scrambling, without success, to justify some of the ridiculous statements he made the other day about the Valis case. Now his argument in defense of Valis boils down to this:

Sure, Valis may have been sentenced to six years in jail, but because I found two or three other child abusers on the Internet who went to jail for more than six years, its reasonable to conclude that Valis wasn't a child abuser. (Seriously, this is what he says)

The argument is a non-starter, and for perhaps fifty reasons, including the fact that not one of his online discoveries is an Israeli case. The most glaring problem with Menken's new kvetch is this: Yisroel Valis was convicted for manslaughter in the death of his son on the testimony of three different doctors who all reported signs of abuse. The judge, we must presume, accepted their evidence, which is why Valis is going to jail.

On top of this, we have Menken's OWN WORDS: Judge Hannah Ben-Ami decided to convict him of manslaughter (not murder) because it was “reasonable to believe that there was awareness of the possible fatal outcome” of his actions.

My only knowledge of Judge Ben Ami's words comes from Meken himself and it seems as obvious as the nose on my face that the judge is saying she believes that Valis did something, and whatever it was, it was far more reckless than drifting off to sleep with a child in his arms. It seems to me that she is saying that whatever Valis did he should have realized that it might lead to a death. (“reasonable to believe that there was awareness of the possible fatal outcome”) The dropped baby theory, which Menken continues to advance, can't co-exist with the judge's own words as he reports them, nor can it be reconciled with the medical evidence provided by three different doctors, or the fact that Valis is going to jail.

So why does Menken continue to present this theory as if it was not only plausible, but reasonable? Why does he tell us, as he did last week, that this convicted, imprisoned manslaughterer was "cleared of all charges?" Excellent questions. Here's one more: Why do Menken and his co-bloggers waste our time with convoluted defenses of child killers, child abusers, hypocritical ministers, anti-Semites, rioters, and other assorted trash, while simultaneously lining up to take one nasty shot after another at any Jew less religious than they are?

[Kvetcher thinks it might be because he's evil. I'll not go that far, but I can't say I haven't started to wonder.]

Update: Kvetcher looked up one of the random child abuse cases Menken pulled out of his hat in defense of Valis, and discovered (SURPRISE) that Menken misresprented it.

---------
Buy my book. (please)