You are disputing that Judge fled to the beach house? Seriously? The guy disappeared until he was tracked down by reporters.
The sexual assault defense being role reversed and used to prosecute him. Interesting. Instead of slut shaming, you are suggesting party shaming? Since he drank and partied a lot, he must have assaulted her? I guess that can be considered progress. It is just more excuses to explain away her memory gaps, while ignoring any data that doesn’t fit with her narrative. You argue cynical self-interest on the part of Kavanaugh, but can’t apply the same level of scrutiny to her. Holes in her story equals trauma. The only 3 people who could independently verify her story can’t recall anything, it was a mundane party. The girl friend couldn’t remember Ford leaving the party without her, and doesn’t even remember Kavanaugh, also just typical memory lapses. A whole lot of holes in Ford’s story simply papered over due to trauma and the independent attendees being unable to remember a mundane party. Certainly couldn’t be Ford is mistaken, nope.
"'Till Death Dewey Party!!" My ex-wife went on a "company function" there, family is not invited. Come to find out later, there was no function, but there sure as hell was a party. Place must be a blast.
Why assume a chain of coincidence? Why not recognize how faulty and bad memory is? Or in other words, a condition endemic to humans. I honestly think if you appraised your own life, you'd find you don't remember far far more than you do but that you remember bits and pieces of things, and with major events, especially where seared into ones mind, much more. Even then that can be faulty too, but tends to be more accurate. And if you talked to others from your past long ago, they'd probably remember things you didn't and vice verse. I am reading her testimony as honestly and objectively as I can, as I've done for Kavanaugh. To the latter, I think he either doesn't truly remember or is lying about it, but he didn't do himself any favors by playing down what his yearbook and buddy and suggested otherwise. I find it highly implausible if not downright a massive whopper of a lie to pretend that he wasn't some party animal trying and likely getting with girls.
Nope, I didn't say since he drank or partied a lot "he must have assaulted her." I suggested that his denial of one calls into question the denial of the other. In other words, if he is willing to lie or spin the yarn about his own involvement in what was pretty clearly was some heavy duty partying among him and his friends, where if he would have come out and said it, it wouldn't even come close to preventing his appointment. But since he did seem to spin it, which I find not credibly, I question his credibility about his response to the attempted rape accusation. Didn't also say "holes in story equal trauma" Can you at least try to be a bit more honest in restating what I wrote? I am not smart enough to come up with a bunch of different ways to explain to you a pretty simple premise, one found conclusively with careful study and should be obvious, humans have bad memories. Even traumatic incidents might not lead to remembering a lot of details (or it can lead to suppression as a coping mechanism). But traumatic incidents will lead them to remember the victimization that took place and by who...if they know who.
And people haven’t gone to therapy or met with therapists and came out accusing the wrong person? Without her therapy notes, we have no idea how this memory came out, what technique was used (i.e. hypnosis, memory regression), etc. She even argued discrepancies in her therapist notes by saying they were mis-written by the therapist, not that she may have been mistaken. You also notice she didn’t provide her therapist’s notes to the committee and was not asked about them, but she did provide access to them for the newspaper article that was written. Seems that the notes would be relevant to the accusations she is making against him, or does the proctologist’s exam only effect Kavanaugh. For all we know, she could have initially named someone other than Kavanaugh. Seriously. Do you hate people who come from the upper-middle class having power? I don’t think Kavanaugh was involved in the 2008 crash, so I don’t understand the hate for him other than you hate rich guys.
60-40, 80-20, or 90-10 makes a difference, especially when you are on the hook for perjury, and haven’t heard what anyone else has swore. It is simpler to swear to “I don’t know”, instead of swearing to 90-10 that the party never happened. And even if your client wanted to swear 100% the party didn’t happen, would you let them? I believe that you would advise them to make the statement that was made, which is no recollection of a party, just to be on the safe side. But the fact that no one remembers the party says nothing about her credibility, just like Kavanaugh’s denial is cynical self-interest.
Actually, it's people like this whom I don't want having any power: I don't like snooty, elitist people. Honestly, Kavanaugh comes off as a privileged, snooty elitist. It's one of the things I despised about Hillary Clinton. People like that think of themselves like royalty. They think they're better than you without having done a thing to earn any of their entitlement. I have nothing against rich people. I do have something against elitist rich people. But there are elitists who aren't even rich.
Oh, so now it’s only evidence. In the post to which I responded you said it was proof? Are you a lawyer?
Which totally explains how false rape ID’s have happened in the past, and DNA proves someone else did it. Traumatic event, bad light, etc. But of course, not when the perpetrator was a known acquaintance, those are 100% infallible. Agree to disagree.
I would advise them to lie to be safe? How do you think people testify to anything in court if people are so afraid of perjury? I'd advise my client to tell the truth. I'd review the statement with him or her and make sure they felt comfortable with each thing he or she said. I would not advise my client to be dishonest or evasive to avoid perjury, especially when my client is a FACT WITNESS.
So did Ford also flee to the Jersey area before her allegations hit the news? Judge had no reason to stick around DC and make himself a target. It would be stupid to do so. He submitted his statement and then left. Did you want him to stick around as a political piñata?
