That she told people 5 years ago certainly undermines arguments that this is just political and that she is completely making it up. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why, as in why would so many women not go to police, or not expose men who violently assault them? Could it be that responses are disbelief? Shaming? Social exclusion? Threats of violence? (i.e. the types of responses that are actually common for women to experience when it comes to violent victimization) As for no witnesses, most rapes (or attempted) do not have witnesses other than the offender and victim. This should not surprise anyone and it should not be the basis for denying an allegation until it's fully heard out and considered; except if false on its face or quickly becomes understood to be false. It would follow, however, that it's common and not at all surprising there isn't physical evidence either. Rapes are often he said/she said because of this and because women often struggle in coming forward, thus not reporting immediately, which leads to evidence being lost. On the hand, what to make of someone who decides to come forward, knowing clearly that her life will be turned inside out? It's of course possible she made this all up and it's about nothing more than a political hit job designed to keep Kavanaugh off the high court. But we don't know until her allegations get a hearing may never know with any certainty, even if she comes across as truthful or even if she doesn't. And Kavanaugh should absolutely have a chance to rebut her accusations (if she testifies in the Senate hearing). But if we aren't going to take her claim seriously (or try to diminish it through whatever means available) than why should we so easily accept his denial? After all, he would a have an incredibly powerful reason to deny it--he might not get that life-time appointment to the pinnacle body of the legal/judicial profession. Maybe he never did anything like this--I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't (or if he did). But his friends cannot possibly know what he has done when they weren't around. Maybe there are others but these women are afraid to come forward? Or maybe it was a one-off? Who knows?
My *guess* is that if her recollection is going to be faulty about something that happened four decades ago, it would be less relevant details such as the exact number of people at this gathering--or even who beyond her alleged attackers was, but much clearer about a violent incident that traumatized her. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if she got some of the details of the incident wrong, yet not the basic thrust of it. Also, according to her allegation in the letter to DF, it could very well be that Kavanaugh and his friend don't remember (or that his friend might remember or at least partially, if his supposed discomfort in seeing her is some indication of a guilty mind, which would also be a she said/he said), if they were drunk as also alleged. All of this raises issues about the details and memory, but not necessarily veracity.
Absent any evidence other than her word, there is no way on earth to prove or even disprove her allegation. Her accusation is so vague so as to make it impossible to be defended against. You sexually assaulted me, at a party, in a house near a golf course, sometime in 1982, and you were sooo drunk that you probably wouldn’t remember it anyway. How the hell do you defend yourself against that? Without a definite date for the party, how can you even begin to provide an alibi? Even if she goes to the Senate hearing to testify, any attempt to pin her down on the date or to give further details will be viewed as attacking the victim of sexual assault, and will certainly be used to make political hay. Which is why all of her demands are so ludicrous. She wants to impugn the reputation of Kavanaugh, but doesn’t want to face any of the repercussions that comes with making an accusation like that. If you are going to accuse someone of sexually assaulting you and impugn their reputation, then they should be able to look you in the eyes while you are doing so. She is not a minor that needs to be protected, she is a grown woman. Kavanaugh has denied it, but of course is guilty until proven innocent. So why is she automatically believable and Kavanugh isn’t? Did she tell anyone around the time frame of the alleged assault that something happened? The only verification of her story comes from people she told the story to during and after her therapy sessions in 2012. Even in a civil case, that wouldn’t be enough evidence to prove anything. The preponderance of the evidence at this point is stacked in Kavanaugh’s favor, as none of the alleged attendees at the party back up her story. We will see if that changes, but even he were to prove he didn’t do it, Kavanugh will have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life.
So close enough is good enough? Changes in her story cast serious doubt on whether her recollection of events are correct. If she isn’t sure about who was there, how can she be so sure that it was Kavanugh and his friend who assaulted her? Some memories are wrong/fuzzy but other memories aren’t? There are examples of men being cleared of rape by using DNA evidence to prove that the eyewitness testimony by the victim that was used to convict them had to be wrong. So this idea that the victim couldn’t possibly have misidentified Kavanaugh so the “minor” inconsistencies in her story shouldn’t matter is really laughable.
How many of those men knew the victim before the night of the alleged rape? Mistaken identity definitely happens when it's a stranger. It seems quite unlikely when the victim knew the assailant.
Agree, some of the details are vague, no doubt making it tough to defend against. This is one of the problems in not coming forward sooner--a predicament many a woman find themselves in (though obviously not on the national stage). I wouldn't envy Kavanaugh in that regard. If we are going to talk political hay, well, that has happened already from both sides. It's not as if she came out and started screaming Kavanaugh is a predatory rapist and should be executed, hyping it up etc...She wrote a letter informing her senator about the incident because she believed it relevant. While maybe she would have assumed it would be explosive, it doesn't seem she was so willing to simply rip him to shreds publicly or even necessarily expected that it would even come to this. Point being that even leaving aside the questions about her memory and the details of the case, you cannot also ignore the effort to rip her apart for basically writing a letter about information that I will assume she truly believes to be factual. You keep on saying guilty until proven innocent. And while I'm sympathetic, this isn't a courtroom and people are free to make their judgments. It's possible to treat her allegations as serious and to give them a fair hearing without drawing hard conclusions about them, just as it's possible not to assume that because Kavanaugh was alleged to have done something wrong, that he in fact did, while still treating the allegations seriously. The unfortunate part is that there is no way to stop anyone from making an allegation and we cannot have a system whereby allegations about criminal or other bad behavior that might be relevant to some proceeding be prevented from being heard by some decision-making entity. Related, saying she's a grown woman thus she should be able to look someone in the eye to make the allegation is the type of thinking that also drives why so many women don't come forward. There is real fear that occurs. That aside, again though, this isn't a criminal trial or a civil trial. The senate could (have) very well chosen not to hear her allegation under the circumstances, as they can have her testify in a hearing. She is under no obligation, however, to have to speak to Kavanaugh in the first place or "look him in the eyes." And the senate (or each of those who will wind up voting on his nomination if it gets to that point) can make up their minds if her testimony is credible or not, or if he winds up going back in front of the senate, whether his is credible or not--and then they can decide through a vote whether he gets the job.
I wrote to issues about memory. I know very well about examples of people being cleared of rape (and other crimes) through dna. And I know about eye-witness testimony. But dna cases that clear people who were misidentified, same with other types of cases relying on eye-witnesses, almost always involve the victim and offender being strangers to one another, not someone the victim and/or witnesses knew and could identify. In any case, my comment was simply pointing out how faulty memory--even sometimes with important things--is usually much more faulty with irrelevant or less relevant details than major/relevant ones. The problem still might be (or is) not being able to make a 100% determination about many details based on other evidence, but faults in memory and lack of some details doesn't necessarily mean she's mistaken or that she shouldn't be believed.
So she could be mistaken/confused about every other part of her story, but not about Kavanaugh? Since they were acquaintances, there is no way she could have misidentified him? The mental gymnastics here is amazing. Just ignore the inconsistencies in her story, there is no way she could misremember the important parts.
There are no mental gymnastics. Try listening to what all the sexual assault survivors are saying. You might learn something.
Right. Since she said she was assaulted, it must be true. And since everyone who was allegedly there has said they don’t remember the event she said happened happening, then they all must be lying/mistaken and not her, right? Not one of them backed up her story but her story couldn’t be wrong, could it? The lone source of truth in a sea of lies. Those girls who accused the Duke Lacrosse team also said they were assaulted. There was a high schooler who was put in jail for 3 years before the victim admitted she lied. Women do lie, you know. And memories are not infallible.
That's a dodge. Have you bothered to read what sexual assault survivors have been saying? I recommend you do. It'll resolve a lot of the questions you have. As for the girl who accused a few members of the Duke Lacrosse team (ONE girl - Crystal Mangum), it was a very different case. And the lawyers were able to disprove her allegation. I actually know one of the lawyers who worked on the case and know the facts behind that case quite well. As for whether they're lying, no, I don't think Keyser or Smyth are lying. Both said they have no recollection of the party. I don't know about Kavanaugh and Judge. Nevertheless, the facts show that only around 2% of allegations are false. That is in line with allegations of other felonies. Do you automatically doubt a person who says they were robbed? The way some of you are acting does hit close to home for me. I found out last year during the #metoo movement that one of my family members had been raped. She never reported it to the police or spoke up before that revelation. I don't know who did it. I've never asked her what happened because I don't want to make her relive that trauma. If her rapist is up for a SCOTUS seat in 30 years, I would hope she would be lauded for her courage to come forward and tell her story. However, seeing the way some of you are acting, I fear that you would attack her for it. Maybe some of you think the way you're acting is right because you disbelieve Dr. Blasey, but the way some of you are acting only empowers the sexual predators out there. I'm not telling you that because somebody makes an allegation, you must accept it as fact. What I'm telling you is that you can treat the person making the allegation with respect and empathy while still trying to determine if the allegation is credible. You are free to disagree, but I see a credible allegation here. And I see a whole lot of people acting in a manner that only serves to discourage victims from coming forward. I'm glad that things are improving, and the #metoo movement played a role in it (as much as some of you tried to pretend that it was some great threat to men). Nonetheless, we're still not where we need to be.
Blasey Ford's Female Classmate, Her Last Named Witness, Doesn't Recall Ever Attending Party With Kavanaugh Blasey Ford's Female Classmate, Her Last Named Witness, Doesn't Recall Ever Attending Party With Kavanaugh Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party. On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford's at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh. "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Keyser's denial, as a female lifelong friend and Ford's last named witness, is the most consequential development that has occurred since Ford publicly stepped forward last I think most of us knew this was nothing more than a political hit job designed to keep Kavanaugh off the high court. She has nobody but herself to blame and the democrats on the way she will be treated after this.
So based on your post, you believe that someone making an accusation 35 years later and providing no details that would allow the accused to disprove the allegation should be believed even though the accused have not been provided the time and place of the alleged crime to show they have an alibi?
Nobody here has deemed him guilty. Pure hyperbole. There's a difference between believing that something traumatic likely happened to this woman and that sexual assault in general should be treated seriously (including this case)... and saying that Kavanaugh is guilty. They are two different things. Like I've said many times in this thread, so far this is just a he said / she said, and unless a witness comes forward placing him with her at this party, he'll be confirmed. And his confirmation or lack there of is all that appears to matter to some folks. On both sides. It's interesting and intensely ironic that "justice be damned" is such a prevailing attitude in the confirmation of a USSC justice.
While not a game changer, the fact that no other person Dr. Ford named has any recollection of attending a party like she describes significantly hurts her case. No witness can put Kavanaugh at the scene of the crime, including a female friend of Dr. Ford. Even if you go with a majority of the evidence standard rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, the fact that no one can say for certain that Kavanaugh was at that party will meet the majority standard.
Your conclusion that this was just a political hit job is unwarranted. And yet another among many politically motivated attacks on a likely sexual assault victim. But if she has no witnesses placing them together, this is over. Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
As of right now, it is not set in stone that Dr. Ford testifies. If she does, it looks like it will be a closed door hearing. Senate Judiciary Committee tentatively agrees to Thursday hearing with Kavanaugh accuser
