Let's use a hypothetical. You are walking down the street with a friend. Your friend sees a person walk by both of you. Your friends turns to you and says, "Whoa, dude, I can't believe I'm seeing that guy again. Twenty years ago, that dude jumped me, beat me up, and stole cash from me. I never reported it because I was drinking underage and didn't want to deal with the cops." Is your instinct to believe your friend or assume he's lying?
You are correct. I thought what sparked the big issue was when she identified him, but she did identify him about a month after the incident. He had not started a game at that point. Sorry about the confusion there. However, the point that many FSU fans questioned timing and the delays is also accurate.
The cases are not exactly the same. She did report something happening to the police. This woman didn't (however, we also know that sexual assaults are dramatically under-reported). However, the defenses (at least the public defenses from those not directly associated with the case) have been very similar. She took too long to report it. She is looking to gain through a false accusation. All of this starts before any of the cases can even be reasonably analyzed by the people making the claims, which suggests that it is a preferred outcome looking for support rather than evidence looking for an outcome. And it is the classic reaction in the modern communications environment, which is my point here.
Can he tell me where and when it happened? Seems like important details to know about something like that.
Somewhere between the two. My response would probably just be to say "Okay...," but I wouldn't base any important decision on my friend's two-decade belated epiphany. If you make it a closer parallel where the person in question is some other random stranger I've never met before who runs up to us and tells my friend and I that the guy who just walked by us mugged him 20 years ago, my reaction would probably change to just making a weird face and keeping walking.
So …….. if the allegations against Kavanaugh can't be proven …. what should happen to the woman who levelled the charges … and those that assisted in the distribution of her unproven allegations? They should not get a free pass …. especially if what was alleged was greatly embellished, exaggerated. What if the allegation was fabricated?
And this is why I would say that this is likely to be a very unpleasant experience for her regardless of how true what she says is. They defamed her using internet reviews of her class...which weren't even about her. And it is still Day 2. I am honestly surprised that she came out to report this at all, given that this is exactly what was always going to happen to her.
Unproven doesn't mean false. If the allegation was fabricated, then yes, she will have a bunch of negative consequences. Her professional reputation will be shot. Kavanaugh could choose to pursue some civil damages if he wanted. However, if they remain unproven, then there should be no retribution against her at all. Unproven doesn't mean untrue.
He can tell you summer of _____ and describe the location. Let's just be honest, you're going to not assume he's lying because it makes no sense that he'd make up something like that. You may not care that much, but your instinct isn't going to be, "Oh, you're definitely lying. It's been too long." Except in this case, the woman is a successful professional who has far more to lose than gain by making the accusation.
The random stranger in that hypothetical could be the UN Secretary General and my response would probably still be to look at them like they're crazy and keep walking.
No, it's just a question for you. It's not "what about..." I understand some very partisan posters play that game- some who have thick blinders on- but this was an honest question. So who did you vote for in 92 and 96? Can't wait to hear.
So when you see a person accused of a rape from a number of years ago, your first instinct is to disbelieve the accuser?
You should. You should also give up your law degree if you do not follow innocent until proven guilty
Because I am a lawyer, I know that presumption only applies to criminal cases in the court of law. Why? Because you're depriving a person of his or her freedom. It makes sense in that context. I do not and need not subscribe to innocent until proven guilty in my personal life.
How can I believe him over the person he just accused of mugging him if he can’t give me a date and location? That is what we are dealing with here. The accused mugger will say “When and where did the event am I being accused of take place?” If I say “In Florida at around this general time frame.” The accused mugger will say “Florida is a big area and I grew up there during that time period. How can I prove I wasn’t at the exact location at the exact time, if you cannot tell what they were?” The lack of a time and location make it impossible for Kavanaugh to fight this charge. Typically accused people are allowed to provide an alibi for their whereabouts during the time a crime is committed. Kavanaugh isn’t even being afforded the opportunity to do that.
So what does she gain by ruining his life? What does she lose if she's exposed as a fraud? What is she going through now that she put herself in the limelight? Think about all those things and ask yourself why somebody would make something like this up. Then, ask yourself why a professional who is a success in her field would do so. There are a lot of people who don't want Kavanaugh on SCOTUS. Why didn't all of them accuse him of rape?
