[soared]

Agreed, absolute garbage. In the opening paragraphs the author claims:

> I’m not that familiar with the trial itself, so I will say nothing beyond noting that if Crews, Predergrast (and Elizabeth Loftus, the recovered-memory expert who endorsed Prendergrast’s book) are right, we have to at least revisit the Sandusky matter.

But then proceeds to write an entire blog about the trial, claiming the victims were coerced by lawyers for financial gain? And that claim is made after reading a medium blog post about a book about concepts related to the trial?

This is a silly post. But to be fair, the author looks like they write thousands of train of thought words on random topics (national chocolate day shares a blog post with Mitch McConnells seizure) where they spew their thoughts, so bad logic is inevitable. I like to polish my blog posts, others don’t - each has pros and cons. This Sandusky post is clearly a con.