Kavanaugh Hearing

While it is possible that Ford is making it up, that narrative just does not fit. The most reasonable conclusion with the info we have is that she's telling the truth and he's lying.

1. 63% of sexual assaults go unreported -- check Ford
2. "Victims who do report will delay in doing so" -- check Ford
3. Research indicates that flase reporting is between 2% and 10%...note that 10% is likely inflated due to varying definitions of "false reporting" (see link) putting it more likely around 3-5% -- in Ford's favor
4. Research shows that trauma victims recall feelings and emotions rather than details, due to how the brain logs traumatic (i.e. dangerous) experiences -- check Ford
5. She requested not to be in the same room as Kavanaugh, which is in line with typical behaviors of sexual assault survivors -- check Ford
6. Sexual assault victims tend to avoid disclosing due to fear of reprisal, putting their family in danger, etc.. She didn't do it until the last minute and only because he was being nominated to the SCOTUS -- check ford

Kavanaugh says he didn't do it. He's got a decent record but there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest he may have some unaired laundry/skeletons in his closet (see the bolded source below).

Pretty much it comes down to, every decision and behavior that Ford has exhibited has been in-line with what we expect a legitimate victim of sexual assault to exhibit.

No reasonable person would conclude that she's lying. The closest reasonable conclusion you could make, in light of the information we DO have, is that she's likely telling the truth. If your conclusion is "she's probably lying" or worse "she is lying." Then you're sorely misinformed about the subject, or playing partisan politics.

Furthermore, I'm sure there are dozens of others with similar qualifications and no accusers of sexual assault; why not just nominate one of them instead? Its not like there's going to be any trouble getting the nomination through. Why does it have to be this guy? (considering the allegations)

Sources

• Everything We Know About Trauma Suggests Christine Blasey Ford Is Telling the Truth
• https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
• California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault
• Brett Kavanaugh Liked Female Clerks Who Looked A ‘Certain Way,' Yale Student Was Told | HuffPost

 

As I said it is entirely possible she only had one beer.

If it was more than one beer, that needs to be explored. How many beers was it? What was the amount of time they were consumed in? Had she consumed alcohol in the past? All the normal questions that would need to be asked in order to established whether someone was mental capacities was affected of alcohol.

I don't think this is actually going to be explored during the hearing if it happens. Dr. Ford is the only person at this point that states they remember this party, so there is no one who could disagree with how many beers she had at the party.

 

They could very well be reasonable to her, but she also has people around her advising her of the ramifications of such decisions. So at the time she engaged an attorney, the attorney should have been telling her she will likely have to testify and what the process will be like. She reportedly has a political operative on her team that has been down this road before. So it's not like she is alone in the wilderness making these decisions out of naivete. Someone has to be telling her that waffling on her testimony and other demands doesn't help her credibility. Not to mention that if she doesn't testify at all that she is unlikely to prevail. So one must wonder what's going on in those conversations and what the end game is because the longer this goes on, the more it smacks of politics at work.

 

I guess we don't need courts anymore if we can just convict people based on statistics. The facts and circumstances of the case at hand aren't relevant.

 

I'm not buying your reasoning. It is possible Ford may have been sexually assaulted by someone, but she has not provided any details that prove it was Kavanaugh or that would allow Kavanaugh to disprove her account. That is insanely problematic in this instance. Kavanaugh cannot provide a defense against these charges because Dr. Ford has not provided him the details necessary to show an alibi. Until that happens, anyone who thinks Dr. Ford might not be entirely truthful has a very valid reason to do so.

There is no anecdotal evidence to suggest Kavanaugh has "laundry/skeletons in his closet." That HuffPo article is nonsense. The daughter of the law professors who supposedly said that about Kavanaugh now have a daughter clerking for him. That was another attempt to try and slim Kavanaugh by making it look like he has a history similar to the judge he clerked for.

 

She remembered in vivid detail what happened to her in that room, and she remembered the two men. Alcohol isn't going to impeach her testimony.

 

Other than her naming him as the person who did it. That's an extremely strong detail, especially in light of the fact that they knew each other before the alleged attempted rape (which makes mistaken identity highly unlikely).

You know what might provide Kavanaugh with the details necessary to try and find an alibi? An investigation. Who is asking for an investigation? Who is asking that we move forward without an investigation?

 

The problem with your post below is the use of generalizations to convict a person against whom there is no evidence save the recollection of one person who may very well have ulterior motives (as previously enumerated) for erroneously recalling what may or (may never) have happened. Unfortunately …. she never reported the alleged incident to anyone …. law enforcement, school counselors, parents, friends ….. no one. so, it's quite easy to now have a specific recollection that is inconsistent with reality. Seemingly, what she now asserts is different than what she told her therapist in 2012. So, if her recollection can change in 6 years ….. how much changed, evolved, or was created over the previous 29-30 years?

It's wholly unreasonable to crucify Kavanaugh and his family over a matter which quite likely never happened …… based solely on the word of one person when there is a dearth of evidence to support the claim. Couple that with Ford's financial ties to the abortion-pharma industry, her liberal/progressive (ie anti-conservative) political beliefs, and the factual manner in which she politicized the matter by sending a letter through one liberal politician to another liberal hack, Diane Feinstein (who then withheld from the balance of the Senate Judicial Committee) ……… and the stench of a convenient political contrivance becomes far too strong.

But what best about what Ford, etal have done is …….. they've convicted Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the minds of leftist Americans …. regardless of the truth.

 

We can't possibly know how much she had or how it affected her except for her recollection and that of witnesses, if any.

 

How do you remember in vivid detail what happened but have no clue when it happened, where it happened , how it happened, how she got there, how she left there,surely she should remember something. But then again to convenient not to remember then Judge cannot possibly get an alibi for something they may or may not have happened

 

Yep. Evidence and courts are no longer necessary in this day of liberal totalitarianism. What we're seeing today is the future …. the modis operendi of the progressive controlled government.

 

Unpacking that link:

1. How serious is the charge? ---claim is: boys will be boys, drunk boys will be drunk boys.
   • Sorry, this is stupid, and part of what is wrong with the patriarchal hegemonic nature of our society.
2. What is the nature of the evidence? --important note: recommends using the civil litigation standard rather than criminal litigation standard.
   • Agree
3. Corroborating evidence? --claim 1: memory is terrible and unrelaible
   • ABSOLUTELY correct. HOWEVER:
   • The type of memory associated with traumatic events is typically highly accurate and reliable as compared with other types of memory. Article doesnt take this into account
4. Is the story specific? --claim: too many details are missing for the claim to be reliable
   • Again, misunderstanding about the type of memory associated with trauma. She's less likely to remember details and more likely to remember feelings (i.e. touch, taste, smell, sound, etc.). This is actually perfectly in line with what we expect.
5. Does it make sense? --claim: her story mostly makes sense (outside of #4 above)
   • Her story makes sense, imo.
6. Does the story fit the character of the accused? claim: Kavanaugh is a good guy and wouldn't do this
   • I'm not convinced this is all that compelling, especially since most things can be hidden away with enough money (see donald j. trump).
   • Some anecdotal evidence that puts some of his behaviors in line with sexual predator behaviors (see my other post)
7. How much time has passed? claim: statute of limitations
   • This isn't a court case, it largely doesn't matter. Basically, do the senators want to appoint a SCOTUS judge who attempted to rape someone? statute of limitations is a red herring here.
8. Time passing before the accusation was made? claim: Ford is probably lying because she waited too long to report
   • This is actually in-line with what we know about the behaviors of victims of sexual assault
9. Motives of the accuser? claim: this is a political move
   • Perhaps, but it seems unlikely based on all of the information we know. If there were other information to suggest she were making it up, then this might be more important. At this point, there doesn't appear to be any information suggesting she's making it up. Therefore, this is largely irrelevant.
10. Is someone mistaken? claim: if she was assaulted, she is misremembering who did it.
    • Sorry, not buying this one. It is absolutely not in-line with everything we know about survivors of sexual assault. They will never forget who attacked them, and they relive it every day essentially. If you assume she's telling the truth and she's not politically motivated, then the only conclusion is that Kavanaugh did it. I'd bet my life on it. Remember, I grew up with a rape survivor and have been around more than one for many years. Misremembering just doesn't happen in these (legitimate) cases.
11. How are they acting? Kavanaugh is a boy scout, Ford is acting guilty/wrong/whatever
    • Kavanaugh: is handling it exactly as he should. Deny and offer to testify, and largely stay out of it
    • Ford: see my other post.

I essentially disagree with everyone point this writer attempts to make. Furthermore, the writer appears uninformed regarding a few key details of the behaviors/tendencies/facts related to victims of sexual assault.

 

Statistically that may all be true, but trying to use it as evidence in and of itself that any particular allegation is true seems to be close to insanity. Because it just so happens to be things that would also be true of pretty much any invented claim.

Say someone came out tomorrow and accused Dianne Feinstein of groping him when he was a Senate intern in the mid-90s, says it was at a reception in one of the Senate Office Buildings but he don't remember what reception, and that he was disgusted by it. It unequivocally is not true, and he just wants to punish Feinstein for causing this circus, and he asks to tell the Senate Ethics Committee about it in a closed session.

And yet:
1. Wasn't reported - Check
2. Long delay - Check
3. Statistically, most other people are telling the truth - Check
4. Short on details - Check
5. Wants to talk about it in a closed committee that Feinstein isn't on - Check
6. Avoided disclosing and only did so because Feinstein was raising the issue as to someone else - Check

So obviously, the only conclusion a reasonable person could reach is that he's probably telling the truth, even though we happen to know because it is a hypothetical that it unequivocally didn't happen?

My point is, at least 5 of your 6 hallmarks of truth are checked for essentially any allegation, whether true or false, simply by virtue of the allegation having been made. And logically I struggle with a line of reasoning saying that the very fact the allegation has been made is in and of itself strong proof that the allegation is most likely true.

 

What are people to think of a 15 year old girl who claims to have been drinking at a party that may or may not have happened … and her recollection of what may or may not have happened at that party that may or may not have ever happened?

Has her recollection improved over the last 36 years?

 

Three sides to every story. His, hers and the truth. We'll likely never know that third side.

I can't see any way that we are in a position to definitely take one person's account over the other's on this.

Maybe it will look different after the hearing, but I kind of doubt it. It will probably stay a he said / she said and he'll get confirmed.

My best guess absent more information.

 

This investigation could have started in July & this last minute circus wouldn't be happening. Apparently Feinstein wasn't convinced that would get her what she wanted, so she pulled this stunt hoping to get better results.

 

Here's a timeline:
1982 - Something may or may not have happened with another 2 (or 4) teenagers at a party, she cannot remember who threw the party, where the party was held, who she was with or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone.
1983,
1984,
1985,
1986,
1987,
1988,
1989,
1990,
1991,
1992,
1993,
1994,
1995,
1996,
1997,
1998,
1999,
2000,
2001,
2002... She said nothing.
July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit... She said nothing.
2004,
2005... She said nothing.
May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate... She said nothing.
June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy... She said nothing.
2007,
2008,
2009,
2010,
2011... She said nothing.
2012... She remembered 'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to authorities.
2013,
2014,
2015,
2016,
2017 - becomes an anti-trump activist.
2018 - now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?

 

Excellent …… I'm sure these are quite handy talking points for the left leaning anti-Conservative. Unfortunately …. there are no facts … or evidence. Just partisan subjective speculation and guesswork.

BTW ….. every comment you've made is erroneous given the likelihood Ford never experienced a sexual assault. Have you considered that possibility?

 

Traumatic experiences (dangerous ones) are processed through the amygdala (emotion processing part of the brain) and stored as such. The amygdala does not process details well, so the memories would be vivid in emotional aspects, and weak in "detail" aspects. That is how.

 

A strong detail that cannot be disproven due to the accuser not providing any additional information.

These accusation are from so far in the past that there is no physical evidence left and we are having to go off the people's memories from 35 years ago. It is a perfect example of why there is a statue of limitations. The FBI can only question people and they cannot force anyone to talk to them and it is understandable why people would not want to get involved in this affair seeing as both sides are getting death threats. I don't see what an investigation by the FBI is going to determine that questioning by the Judiciary Committee would not answer. I do think the committee should reach out to the two other people Dr. Ford says were at the party and ask them for their statement, but they should be allowed to remain nameless and not have to show up for the hearing.