If there is a reason to do so, yes (e.g., no statute of limitations, somebody in a legally sensitive position, etc.). That is what law enforcement is for. The guy is about to be given a lifetime appointment to one of the three branches of our federal government. That seems to make the case pretty important. Probably why we have a long thread about the guy in which I am probably the only participant that has lived in the same county where the event took place.
You people are hopelessly optimistic that evidence will be found... I challenge anyone here to write any believable fictional crime drama under the same circumstances, where a shred of evidence is found... Though she won't necessarily remember the details of this event... Nobody is more likely to remember and give an honest account of the events than she is assuming it actually happened...
The law in some states would allow that. In many states, there is a statute of limitations on sexual assault (and even rape I think, some have as short a 3 years even for rape... which is rediculous). So it couldn't be brought into a criminal courtroom. This isn't a criminal courtroom. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for you to understand.
At some point... there's limitations to how you can allocate time and resources... In no other case... possibly even a murder case... would you question all graduates in a high school class just to find a starting point for an investigation... It just doesn't happen...
Investigation begins with her. She needs to be interviewed first in a setting where she is allowed to be unsure and in which the investigator is trained to ask questions in a manner that is designed to elicit useful investigatory answers rather than political grandstanding.
I didn't suggest that they question all graduates of both high schools involved. You ask her who she was with that day. If she isn't sure, you ask her who she generally was around that summer. You figure out what she knows and use that to begin interviewing people.
All the more reason why an investigation shouldn't happen... It's hard to find evidence in cases that happened as short as within 3 years prior... It's near impossible forty years later... Just stop....
Well if that's what she wants, she should help herself and speak publicly about it... Give the public reason to believe you... Demanding an FBI investigation in spite of jurisdiction issues in order to attend a hearing damages her credibility to say the least. Throw the public a bone to give you the benefit of the doubt... She's continually refused to do so...
You think an investigator is magically going to make her remember more than she's already said? If this were true, she had every reason to be as detailed as possible with the initial released story, even after people asked more questions about it.... She's refused to do so... She has not done herself any favors... don't get upset when the world doesn't stop for you...
We are talking about a very specific allegation involving one women, one man, and a party where they can probably narrow down some principals (a handful are already known). We are also talking about a Supreme Court nominee. I don't think assigning a handful of agents around the country to do their normal duties of federal background checks, to go out and locate and interview maybe a few dozen people, is a huge "resource allocation" issue. The hardest issue might be tracking some of these people down. Their statements may provide no answers, but you can't know that until you ask them as part of an investigation. Not scripted political theater.
Not at all. I have said that I don't know. But you don't prejudge. Yeah, nobody would ever consider putting together fictional crime drama around old cases. Nobody has ever done a book, movie, or TV show based upon old, unsolved crimes being re-opened with an accusation or a relatively minor piece of evidence. It has never occurred to anybody and there isn't a huge list of that sort of thing. Something that you can't know. You have no idea what else happened that day and who it happened with. There are certain things that she is the most likely to remember (e.g., if you asked her about the room in which it happened, she might be able to provide the best description). Other details? Who knows?
Well it comes down to what is this about? You keep calling a hearing scripted political theater... Well presumably Democrats are on the fence about voting for Kavanaugh because they're demanding this investigation, right? Republicans want this thing to happen already because they've made up their minds... The selection of Kavanaugh is out of the people's hands at this point... It's in the hands of elected officials... Everyone has already made up their mind... So what's the point of this investigation?
No. But a trained investigator can often spot lies, holes in stories, and inconsistencies. An investigator can also speak to both Kavanaugh and Judge and do the same. Also talk to each person's circle of friends. Might not get to the truth, but you can certainly paint a picture of what each person was like back then and how that shaped who each person is today. For the record, I went to my Senior prom with Kerrie and another couple, Jenny and Kade. That was over 25 years ago. I've been told, on more than one occasion, I have a very good memory.
Neither does she... neither does Kavanaugh because apparently it didn't happen... Now what? Dead End...
I can say the same thing... That's not exactly a a comprehensive summary of exactly what happened that night in any order....
Gee, Ford and Feinstein should have thought of this 39 days ago...... or 12 years ago .... or 36 years ago. It’s a shame they did not. Damn shame ......
The FBI is probably already doing some more legwork in conjunction with the background check. So when they receive updated information on an investigation, they typically will try to verify it. The bit about her demanding an investigation though before she will testify before the senate is off base IMO. If you decide to come forward, you do it with the knowledge that you will have to tell your story in maybe an uncomfortable process set by others. She could have decided not to come forward, to do so anonymously or to just sign a statement and refuse to testify. The bit about trying to control the process by which the incident is investigated is where I diverge and wonder what kind of advice she is getting. It sounds uninformed at a minimum or possibly political.
Not what she is claiming. She has said things that happened that day. And we don't know what else she knows. You have just decided for her what she know. You have no clue whether that is true. Investigate is the proper reaction. That way we possibly know better what happened. Ignoring it is never informative. Again, you have no clue whether that is true or not. You are taking your preferred outcome and substituting it for facts.
With respect to Kavanaugh and Judge... (Assuming they actually found a time, date, and location of the party) 1. Where were you on this time and date... A: I don't remember it was forty years ago... 2. Were you at this place? A: Possibly, I don't know... We're done, here...
I don't believe you are a trained investigator either. Are you? The FBI has some of the highest trained investigators on the planet that work for the BAU. Let one of them or a retired, independent BAU agent investigate. What does Kavanagh have to lose? Maybe a few weeks before he starts a lifetime appointment? If he's innocent, a few weeks is meaningless. At the same time, what does Dr. Ford have to gain by coming forward and talking to the FBI?
