Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-11-2018, 07:53 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,052
How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case?

(Without making this about Ford specifically - rather, about victims in general):

It is essentially impossible for a plaintiff to provide evidence for many sex crimes (a perpetrator would obviously take measures to ensure that there wouldn't be eyewitnesses around to see the crime - DNA evidence is long far past detection or usefulness - there almost certainly wouldn't be surveillance cameras - etc. etc.) So how is someone like Ford supposed to provide evidence of a crime for which there is no evidence to be given?

A standard of "Just believe the victim" would open an enormous loophole for false accusations, but what practical alternative is there?
  #2  
Old 11-11-2018, 07:54 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,052
(Edit: thread specifically about sex crimes from many years ago. If someone was raped three hours ago, there would of course be forensic evidence in a way that a rape from three decades ago wouldn't.)
  #3  
Old 11-11-2018, 07:59 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,747
She can't forensically, as you said. The would have to be very credible eye witnesses or a recording of some kind.
  #4  
Old 11-11-2018, 08:49 PM
Manda JO Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,819
But this is true for all sorts of things, isn't it? I mean, imagine you manage a restaurant. A trusted female employee comes to you with a complaint about a new employee. She reports:

A) He spat in soup of an annoying customer
B) He stole $20 from the communal tip jar
C) He comped his buddies a free meal
D) He groped her in the walk in freezer.

None of those are provable, but no one would have a problem with taking the word of a trusted employee on A-C, at least in terms of grounds for termination. Get to D, however, and suddenly it's all about how she has no evidence and could be trying to ruin her good name. As a society, we have a weird sort of special pleading around sexuality. We give sexual misbehavior a pass when comparable non-sexual transgressions would get someone shunned: somehow, the way a guy is with women gets compartmentalized and zeroed out. We are reluctant to take action against someone when their misbehavior is against women: it's like it's not quite real, it shouldn't count. So if we are trying to decide if someone is a thief, a cheat, a back-stabber, whatever, the standard of evidence is pretty low. But for sexual offences, the standard is much higher.
  #5  
Old 11-11-2018, 10:12 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
... if we are trying to decide if someone is a thief, a cheat, a back-stabber, whatever, the standard of evidence is pretty low. But for sexual offences, the standard is much higher.
...even though almost all the reasons why someone might lie about a sexual assault are also reasons why they might lie about anything else as well.
  #6  
Old 11-11-2018, 10:52 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
(Without making this about Ford specifically - rather, about victims in general):

It is essentially impossible for a plaintiff to provide evidence for many sex crimes (a perpetrator would obviously take measures to ensure that there wouldn't be eyewitnesses around to see the crime - DNA evidence is long far past detection or usefulness - there almost certainly wouldn't be surveillance cameras - etc. etc.) So how is someone like Ford supposed to provide evidence of a crime for which there is no evidence to be given?

A standard of "Just believe the victim" would open an enormous loophole for false accusations, but what practical alternative is there?
The historical sex crimes cases which have stuck, i.e those where a conviction occurred and survived appellate review, have generally tended to be those with quite a lot of contemporary evidence. Often a complaint was filed, statements taken and evidence collected, but the matter did not proceed. Or at least so,e contemporary evidence survived.
  #7  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:44 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,832
Short of Mike Judge having decided to throw in with her, there was never going to be a case. The only real hope would have been that the FBI would have exposed the various lies that Kavanaugh told in his testimony. But they were not given that option as part of their investigation nor would that, traditionally, be the sort of thing that they would investigate on its own either.

The Democrats failed, strategically, by trying to get the FBI to investigate. They should have focused on Kavanaugh's dishonesty.
  #8  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:51 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
But this is true for all sorts of things, isn't it? I mean, imagine you manage a restaurant. A trusted female employee comes to you with a complaint about a new employee. She reports:

A) He spat in soup of an annoying customer
B) He stole $20 from the communal tip jar
C) He comped his buddies a free meal
D) He groped her in the walk in freezer.

None of those are provable, but no one would have a problem with taking the word of a trusted employee on A-C, at least in terms of grounds for termination. Get to D, however, and suddenly it's all about how she has no evidence and could be trying to ruin her good name. As a society, we have a weird sort of special pleading around sexuality.
I think this analogy is flawed.
If I'm a small business owner and A, B or C are reported then the degree to which I trust the accuser and accused is a key factor. If the accused has worked with me for 10 years and always been responsible and honest, and the accuser just started work last week then no, I'm not going to immediately fire Miss Responsible. I would investigate further but if it came down to she-said-she-said then it would just be a note in her record for now.
Flip the roles and Miss Newbie is gone.

And it's similar with D, except that D is more serious and so I would maybe call the police, and they would use their methods which are as follows (and in answer to the OP):

Gather as much evidence as possible of all kinds, not just physical evidence. Many times further corroborating evidence is found, or one party's story starts to unravel.

Last edited by Mijin; 11-12-2018 at 12:52 AM.
  #9  
Old 11-12-2018, 01:01 AM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
None of those are provable, but no one would have a problem with taking the word of a trusted employee on A-C, at least in terms of grounds for termination. Get to D, however, and suddenly it's all about how she has no evidence and could be trying to ruin her good name. As a society, we have a weird sort of special pleading around sexuality. We give sexual misbehavior a pass when comparable non-sexual transgressions would get someone shunned: somehow, the way a guy is with women gets compartmentalized and zeroed out. We are reluctant to take action against someone when their misbehavior is against women: it's like it's not quite real, it shouldn't count. So if we are trying to decide if someone is a thief, a cheat, a back-stabber, whatever, the standard of evidence is pretty low. But for sexual offences, the standard is much higher.
Uh, what exactly is the evidence for this? You say that "as a society" we treat sexual behavior in a particular way, and other types of bad behavior by employees in different ways. What evidence backs that up? I am willing to look at real scientific research on the matter, if there is any.

To the OP, as far as the courts are concerned, no one is supposed to be convicted in a criminal case unless proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. If this approach were rigidly followed, it would obviously lead to some cases where a criminal gets away with their crimes. (In the USA, we instead now have a system that railroads most accused criminals without even having a trial.)

You say "a perpetrator would obviously take measures to ensure that there wouldn't be eyewitnesses around to see the crime - DNA evidence is long far past detection or usefulness - there almost certainly wouldn't be surveillance cameras - etc. etc". Well the same could be true for all kinds of crime. If criminals were smart, they would arrange their crimes so as to avoid leaving evidence or corroborating witnesses. The basic fact is that almost all criminals are morons, which is why most serious crimes are solved.
  #10  
Old 11-12-2018, 08:36 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
If the accused has worked with me for 10 years and always been responsible and honest, and the accuser just started work last week then no, I'm not going to immediately fire Miss Responsible. I would investigate further but if it came down to she-said-she-said then it would just be a note in her record for now.
Flip the roles and Miss Newbie is gone.
This system would work with exceptions, one being the case where Miss Responsible feels threatened by a new employee who's performing a lot better and is a hot candidate for promotion, and so Miss Responsible makes up stuff to get Miss Newbie fired and thus protect her position.
  #11  
Old 11-12-2018, 09:33 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO
But this is true for all sorts of things, isn't it? I mean, imagine you manage a restaurant. A trusted female employee comes to you with a complaint about a new employee. She reports:

A) He spat in soup of an annoying customer
B) He stole $20 from the communal tip jar
C) He comped his buddies a free meal
D) He groped her in the walk in freezer.

None of those are provable, but no one would have a problem with taking the word of a trusted employee on A-C, at least in terms of grounds for termination. Get to D, however, and suddenly it's all about how she has no evidence and could be trying to ruin her good name. As a society, we have a weird sort of special pleading around sexuality.
I don't think I would make any special pleading about D vs. A-C.

I have a trusted employee, who has worked for me for twenty years. All of his fellow employees speak very highly of him, about his honesty, integrity, and intelligence. So I want to promote him.

Some anonymous stranger says she doesn't want to give her name, and he did X thirty five years ago, or maybe thirty six, and she doesn't remember exactly where he did it and that Joe helped him, and Sally and Bill were there. He says he didn't, Joe says he didn't, Bill says he doesn't remember him doing X, and Sally says she doesn't recall ever being in the same room with him. I wouldn't treat it any differently if X were groping her in the freezer vs. spitting in the soup.

It's going to be difficult to establish that anything happened thirty five years after the fact.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan; 11-12-2018 at 09:33 AM.
  #12  
Old 11-12-2018, 09:52 AM
blindboyard blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,141
This is why there are statutes of limitations, older crimes are harder to prove but just as easy to use as a slanderous unfounded accusation. Had the crime been reported at the time there could have been a fair investigation. Too late for that now, of course, but people are innocent until proven guilty.
  #13  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:01 AM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
It's going to be difficult to establish that anything happened thirty five years after the fact.
Most especially when:
- Much of the recollection of the accuser (location; date & time) is too vague to be checkable
- Checking what is checkable (people alleged to be present) entirely fails to support the accusation
- The accuser bypasses the normal investigative process
  #14  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:23 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I don't think I would make any special pleading about D vs. A-C.

I have a trusted employee, who has worked for me for twenty years. All of his fellow employees speak very highly of him, about his honesty, integrity, and intelligence. So I want to promote him.

Some anonymous stranger says she doesn't want to give her name, and he did X thirty five years ago, or maybe thirty six, and she doesn't remember exactly where he did it and that Joe helped him, and Sally and Bill were there. He says he didn't, Joe says he didn't, Bill says he doesn't remember him doing X, and Sally says she doesn't recall ever being in the same room with him. I wouldn't treat it any differently if X were groping her in the freezer vs. spitting in the soup.

It's going to be difficult to establish that anything happened thirty five years after the fact.
"The reason I called you in today is— well, as I'm sure you know, you're being considered for promotion. But there've been some recent allegations made about you, and your past behavior, that are frankly disturbing. I need to ask you a few questions, just to clear this matter up."

"This is a NATIONAL DISGRACE!" <slurp><gulp> "Okay, shoot."

"At any time, while working as a waiter in the 1980s, did you spit in the soup of a customer who had annoyed you?"

"Did YOU?"

"Uh, okay... moving on. Is it true that you once stole $20 from the communal tip jar?"

"No. Never."

"What about this entry in your yearbook that says 'Tip Jar Heist Crew Member'?"

"Drinking game."

"Light-fingered Waitron?"

<sniff> "Drinking game."

"Garçon Voleur?"

"Jeu à boire."

"How about 'Seriously, hide your tips because this guy will totally steal them'?"

"DRINKING GAME! This is a complete circus! You're the ringmaster! This office is the big top! I'm swinging on a trapeze! Look, an elephant! CLOWNS!" <honk honk>

"Well, I think that about wraps it up..."

"I'm ANGRY WITH RAGE!! This is my angry face! RAWWWWWWWWRRRRR!!! This whole thing is a hit job. I'm being unfairly targeted by Hillary Clinton, Slender Man and the Canadian Illuminati!"

"...and on behalf of Shodan Enterprises, let me be the first to say: congratulations! I'm confident that you'll make a fantastic VP."

"Are we done yet? Dude, I am like, so fucking hung over right now. I think I'm gonna boot..."

"Trash can's right behind... ah, well. Nevermind."
  #15  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:30 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A standard of "Just believe the victim" would open an enormous loophole for false accusations, but what practical alternative is there?
The alternative is to change the basis of our system of justice.

Sexual assaults are always difficult to prosecute. In many cases there is no physical evidence. There are no witnesses other than the victim. The standard of proof is the same, beyond a reasonable doubt. Add on decades of time and conflicting memories and its nearly impossible to prosecute.

But I have done it. In one case it started with a victim coming forward with something that happened years before. We got permission to get a consensual intercept. That's where we record a conversation with the permission of one of the parties and an OK from the court. We got him on tape apologizing for what he did. Then other victims started to fall like dominos. It built into an ironclad case and he pleaded guilty. None of which could have been possible if instead of coming to us to do an investigation it was released to the press first for political gain.
  #16  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:31 AM
Maastricht Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 9,132
Often a victim confides in a friend or family member or counselor hours or days after the fact. Their testimonies are admissible evidence.

Such testimonies prove that the victim did not make up the accusation recently.

If Ford, for instance, produced several witnesses who can independently testify that yes, as a teen she did tell them about the incident with Kavanaugh, whne he was just a fellow student, then the accusation that Ford made all this up recently just as a political hit job on an aspiring SCOTUS, becomes much harder.
__________________
--------------------------------------
"There's a support group for that, it's called everybody and they meet at the bar."
  #17  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:32 AM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So how is someone like Ford supposed to provide evidence of a crime for which there is no evidence to be given?
She could:
- Speak up while evidence is available
- Speak up before memory becomes so vague as to be worthless
- Avoid bringing forth her accusation decades after the fact, but at a carefully chosen time when an ulterior motive is plausible to everyone
  #18  
Old 11-12-2018, 10:44 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
This system would work with exceptions, one being the case where Miss Responsible feels threatened by a new employee who's performing a lot better and is a hot candidate for promotion, and so Miss Responsible makes up stuff to get Miss Newbie fired and thus protect her position.
Sure. But my point was simply the analogy doesn't work: we do *not* just blanket believe all accusations other than sexual assault.

I think Kavanaugh is likely guilty but I'm still going to point out faulty logic.
  #19  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,142
I'm rather confused by OP. The burden of proof is very high (or high) in a criminal (or civil, resp.) case but this was neither. The Senate was called upon to form a decision about a job applicant. And not whether he should be dismissed as a judge — though that would certainly be my verdict — but whether he should be promoted to the highest court in the land.

There is plenty of evidence that Dr. Ford had reported the attempted rape earlier and named Kavanaugh. But she did not go public until the SCOTUS nomination. This is not the behavior of anyone but a truth-teller.

At the link above find other accusers, including Deborah Ramirez whose 35 years-ago accusation had contemporaneous corroboration.
__________________
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #20  
Old 11-12-2018, 11:55 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
"The reason I called you in today is— well, as I'm sure you know, you're being considered for promotion. But there've been some recent allegations made about you, and your past behavior, that are frankly disturbing. I need to ask you a few questions, just to clear this matter up."
I appreciate the effort, but the statement above lacks a few details to be analogous.

"The reason I called you here today has very little to do with the accusations. I'm just stalling and grandstanding as long as possible.

You have undergone hours and hours of testimony. We have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. Without any exception, they testify to a person of character and integrity, who has conducted both his work and his personal life with exemplary character.

But there are a bunch of people who don't like you, because of your adherence to the principle that the Constitution is the defining document of the US system rather than the editorial page of the New York Times. One of those who doesn't like you is a confessed sexual assaulter who thinks he's a Roman gladiator. Another is a person whose idea of respecting the process is to wait until it is over and then make unfounded accusations, and who respects the wish for privacy by leaking names to the press. Another is the lawyer for a porno star who has found some nutcase who claims she attended parties over a period of years featuring gang rape, but isn't quite sure if you were in the same zip code.

None of the accuser's allegations can be substantiated. Everyone she says was there declines to corroborate, and she isn't even sure where 'there' is.

But, you got drunk in college, and you appear to have made fart jokes in your yearbook. So none of that counts.

I yield the rest of my time, my orange wig, my rubber nose, and big floppy shoes back to the teeny little car to the chair."

Regards,
Shodan
  #21  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:05 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm rather confused by OP. The burden of proof is very high (or high) in a criminal (or civil, resp.) case but this was neither. The Senate was called upon to form a decision about a job applicant. And not whether he should be dismissed as a judge — though that would certainly be my verdict — but whether he should be promoted to the highest court in the land.

There is plenty of evidence that Dr. Ford had reported the attempted rape earlier and named Kavanaugh. But she did not go public until the SCOTUS nomination. This is not the behavior of anyone but a truth-teller.

At the link above find other accusers, including Deborah Ramirez whose 35 years-ago accusation had contemporaneous corroboration.
Her husband's memory which is contradicted by the therapist's note is not plenty.
  #22  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:09 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 19,889
When I levied an accusation of workplace harassment against a coworker, my boss talked to all of my coworkers individually. They actually told him things that I wasn't even aware of, since I had been clueless to a number of signs and red flags. So they were able to corroborate my story without even knowing the specifics of my story.

Was their corroboration "proof"? No, but it was evidence. The weight of evidence leaned more in my direction than the accused.

Last edited by monstro; 11-12-2018 at 12:09 PM.
  #23  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:39 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,834
Quote:
Quoth blindboyard:

This is why there are statutes of limitations, older crimes are harder to prove but just as easy to use as a slanderous unfounded accusation. Had the crime been reported at the time there could have been a fair investigation. Too late for that now, of course, but people are innocent until proven guilty.
Except that there couldn't have been a fair investigation. Or, more precisely, there wouldn't have been. Society at the time simply didn't take claims of sexual assault seriously, especially when the accuser was a lower social class than the accused. Given that, is it any surprise that most women didn't bother to report? It's only now, in the past couple of years, that we're even starting to make any progress on this, and we still have a long ways to go.

But even laying that aside: Suppose that, the minute she got away from the party, she called the police, and they immediately responded. What could they have found? A bunch of underaged rich boys having a drinking party. What other evidence would there have been? And we already have Kavanaugh's own admission that he went to underage drinking parties, and nobody cared.
  #24  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:43 PM
filmore filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,205
Keep in mind that Ford's allegations played out in the political arena, where the only important thing is winning. Even if there was video of the incident, you'd have R's trying to spin it that it was consensual and she was encouraging and enjoying it. If Kavanaugh had instead been a D nominee, you would have heard Lindsey Graham give a breathless rant about how her allegations need to be believed and the D's were dragging the name of a good woman through the mud.
  #25  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:48 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
At the link above find other accusers, including Deborah Ramirez whose 35 years-ago accusation had contemporaneous corroboration.
Did you read your own cite?
Quote:
Corroborators: None publicly identified. The New Yorker and the New York Times could not confirm with any eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. An unidentified classmate said he is “100 percent sure” he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. “The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus,” the New Yorker reported.

Other witnesses:

James Roche, Kavanaugh’s freshman year roommate. He said in a statement that “I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk.”
Note that the unidentified classmate does not claim to have witnessed the incident. Nor does anyone else.

One person who did not see it, and another anonymous person who also didn't see it but heard about it, does not constitute "corroboration".

Your assertion is false.

Regards,
Shodan
  #26  
Old 11-12-2018, 12:49 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm rather confused by OP. The burden of proof is very high (or high) in a criminal (or civil, resp.) case but this was neither. The Senate was called upon to form a decision about a job applicant. And not whether he should be dismissed as a judge — though that would certainly be my verdict — but whether he should be promoted to the highest court in the land.
Well then, the Senate considered; and chose the give him the job.
Quote:
At the link above find other accusers, including Deborah Ramirez whose 35 years-ago accusation had contemporaneous corroboration.
If by “contemporaneous corroboration” you mean inadmissible hearsay, people who were supposed to have been present denied recollection, the accuser herself was unsure about whether Kav was the perp another person who claimed to have heard about it from an eyewitness, found that eyewitness denying it, and oh the presence of a known flasher on campus, at the same time and place, who was not Kavanaugh, and of who there is a picture flashing, then yes, a lot of evidence.
  #27  
Old 11-12-2018, 01:35 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,484
I know this is bordering on "not the topic of this thread," but . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
We have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. Without any exception, they testify to a person of character and integrity, who has conducted both his work and his personal life with exemplary character.
. . . actually, false. More like "we have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. We have ignored anyone who says anything other than the fact that you have exemplary character.

"without exception" is . . . an obviously inaccurate way to describe or analogize the events of this past fall.

As to the OP, it depends on what you mean by "prove her case" and why you want her to do so.

There are plenty of actions that happened in the past (most of them) that are not "provable" but we somehow manage to come to fairly accurate and/or useful understandings of what happened; certainly with enough certainty to move forward in this world and not be immobilized by lack-of-truth.

In fact, as has already been mentioned/alluded to in this thread, the most shameful part of the whole Ford process is that adults who are fully aware that 99% of past events (particularly unremarkable ones) will leave behind no smoking gun, insisted that it was unreasonable to believe Ford without evidence.
  #28  
Old 11-12-2018, 02:11 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
More like "we have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. We have ignored anyone who says anything other than the fact that you have exemplary character.
I don't think it is accurate to say that Ford's allegation was ignored. She said she wanted not to pursue it, if the anonymous accusation was not sufficient to torpedo the nomination. It was after the hearings were more or less concluded that the Dems leaked it. Leaving aside that Ford was not a colleague, not a co-worker, had never worked for Kavanaugh, and far from knowing him all her life, had not had contact with him for decades.

Neither were Swetnick nor Ramirez, and their allegations were not ignored either. They were investigated, and found to be other than credible.
Quote:
After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially
credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating
to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators
found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations
brought against Justice Kavanaugh.
(Cite.)

Nothing was ignored - your statement is other than factual.

Regards,
Shodan
  #29  
Old 11-12-2018, 02:18 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Except that there couldn't have been a fair investigation. Or, more precisely, there wouldn't have been. Society at the time simply didn't take claims of sexual assault seriously, especially when the accuser was a lower social class than the accused. Given that, is it any surprise that most women didn't bother to report? It's only now, in the past couple of years, that we're even starting to make any progress on this, and we still have a long ways to go.

But even laying that aside: Suppose that, the minute she got away from the party, she called the police, and they immediately responded. What could they have found? A bunch of underaged rich boys having a drinking party. What other evidence would there have been? And we already have Kavanaugh's own admission that he went to underage drinking parties, and nobody cared.
There would have been plenty of opportunity for the police to work. The accuser was from a wealthy and influential family and it is unlikely she would have been ignored. The police could have gone to the party and arrested Judge and Kavanaugh. They would have had plenty of leverage to get Judge to flip on Kavanaugh, the other people at the party would have been witnesses. Kavanaugh would have had resources and his mother was a lawyer so it would not have been a slam dunk case but there would be a decent chance for a plea to a lesser crime.
  #30  
Old 11-12-2018, 02:37 PM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
We have ignored anyone who says anything other than the fact that you have exemplary character.
Can you tell us who was ignored?


Quote:
... the most shameful part of the whole Ford process is that adults who are fully aware that 99% of past events (particularly unremarkable ones) will leave behind no smoking gun, insisted that it was unreasonable to believe Ford without evidence.
This is an impressive non-sequitur.

Everyone knows that direct evidence for most 30-year-old events is unavailable. It does not follow that an evidence- and corroboration-free assertion that something happened long ago thus should be believed.

It's entirely reasonable to believe such an accusation could be true, and to look into it. When no evidence is found, it's spectacularly unreasonable to nonetheless believe it's true.

Last edited by Xema; 11-12-2018 at 02:39 PM.
  #31  
Old 11-12-2018, 03:07 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,484
Shodan and Xema, maybe I wasn't clear. I take exception to Shodan's statement that "without any exception" everyone (presumably other than Ford) who knew Kavanaugh stated that he was a person of exemplary character.

Here are just two statements by people who worked with Kavanaugh who don't think he is a person of "character and integrity".

Your claim that his integrity was supported "without exception" is false. I never said Ford's claim was ignored. I am making a statement about you and your argument, and how your claim is a false one.

Maybe I wasn't clear. But I think I was.

Also:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema
This is an impressive non-sequitur.

Everyone knows that direct evidence for most 30-year-old events is unavailable.
Not a non-sequitur at all. The OP asks about "proving" a case. I think it is not surprising that there is no proof. Most things don't have proof. Any one who demands that there be proof before believing a statement about past events is confused about how and why we determine things to be true.

In other words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
When no evidence is found, it's spectacularly unreasonable to nonetheless believe it's true.
This is false on a few levels. First, someone claiming to have experienced something is evidence (how meaningful that evidence is is based on a lot of variables). So, there is evidence. Maybe flawed, but evidence nonetheless.

Second, given that someone claims something happened, it may or may not be reasonable to believe it's true.

My coworker tells me they ate a bowl of soup for lunch last week. Is it unreasonable for me to believe it?
  #32  
Old 11-12-2018, 04:43 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,207
So the two people you mentioned were interviewed, and ignored?
Quote:
My coworker tells me they ate a bowl of soup for lunch last week. Is it unreasonable for me to believe it?
Actually your coworker can't remember if it was last week, or thirty five years ago. And cannot remember the restaurant, and says that Joe, Bill, and Sally were there, and Joe, Bill, and Sally all say they don't recall having lunch together.

Regards,
Shodan
  #33  
Old 11-12-2018, 04:53 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
(Without making this about Ford specifically - rather, about victims in general):
About half of you clearly cant read. Why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously when you refuse to take the OP seriously?

mc
  #34  
Old 11-12-2018, 05:30 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,875
Do you just want the elevator pitch, or can I have a few days to prepare you a formal proposal?
  #35  
Old 11-13-2018, 01:16 AM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
I think it is not surprising that there is no proof.
I think almost anyone would agree.


Quote:
Most things don't have proof.
Right. But extraordinary claims should have at least good evidence to be believed.

If your co-worker tells you he ate a bowl of soup for lunch, you tend to believe it without evidence - and it's entirely reasonable to do so.

If he tells you he had lunch with your mother, who instructed him to tell you to hand over all your money, it would not be reasonable to believe this without strong evidence.
  #36  
Old 11-13-2018, 03:12 AM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
(Without making this about Ford specifically - rather, about victims in general):

It is essentially impossible for a plaintiff to provide evidence for many sex crimes (a perpetrator would obviously take measures to ensure that there wouldn't be eyewitnesses around to see the crime - DNA evidence is long far past detection or usefulness - there almost certainly wouldn't be surveillance cameras - etc. etc.) So how is someone like Ford supposed to provide evidence of a crime for which there is no evidence to be given?

A standard of "Just believe the victim" would open an enormous loophole for false accusations, but what practical alternative is there?
Without meaning to sound like a jerk you seem to be implying the goal of the US justice system is to punish those guilty of crimes such as rape and it's purpose is for the victims of crimes to receive "justice".

It's actually not.

My entire life I've heard people of various different stripes complain about "the victims", "the community", "the public" or someone else not receiving justice but the reality of the situation is that none of those groups are entitled to justice. The only group of people entitled to "justice" in the US according to our judicial system are the defendants.

Our system is set up to ensure that those accused of crimes receive "due process" and fair trials and operates on the principal that it's better to let ten guilty people go free than to punish one innocent man.

Such a system unfortunately is not going to help people in the situation of Dr. Ford.
  #37  
Old 11-13-2018, 03:44 AM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,342
Believing something and acting on it are NOT the same thing. . .Trust but verify!

If I call the police and tell them that my house has been robbed, they are going to believe me. They will come over to take my statement and begin an investigation. Even tho there is a good chance I could be lying about the whole thing, they will start from a place of belief.

And that is all someone who makes an accusation of sexual harassment or assault wants. To have the person they are telling to start from a place of belief. To not be dismissed as an overreaction or misunderstanding, that it was just a joke or that boys will be boys. Start with the assumption that this is real, and then investigate to find out if there is evidence to support the claim.

Now, I live in a big city and I am fully aware that lots of houses get robbed and that there may be nothing that the police can do to get my things back or to even find the person who did it. But by speaking up it puts the police on notice that this is happening in my neighborhood and maybe they can do something to prevent it from happening again to me or someone else. Even if I know who did it and tell the police, they're not gonna just go and arrest someone on my sayso. They have to investigate and look for proof.

Likewise, people who make claims of sexual harassment or assault know that there maybe not enough evidence to actually punish the attacker, but it puts the attacker on notice that the behavior is under investigation and will not be tolerated further. And maybe there is evidence of the attack or a pattern of accusations, but you can't find anything if you don't look.

Many times it's not about proving one's case. It's about being heard, it's about being taken seriously, it's about taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again.

mc
  #38  
Old 11-13-2018, 07:13 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I appreciate the effort, but the statement above lacks a few details to be analogous.

"The reason I called you here today has very little to do with the accusations. I'm just stalling and grandstanding as long as possible.

You have undergone hours and hours of testimony. We have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. Without any exception, they testify to a person of character and integrity, who has conducted both his work and his personal life with exemplary character.

But there are a bunch of people who don't like you, because of your adherence to the principle that the Constitution is the defining document of the US system rather than the editorial page of the New York Times. One of those who doesn't like you is a confessed sexual assaulter who thinks he's a Roman gladiator. Another is a person whose idea of respecting the process is to wait until it is over and then make unfounded accusations, and who respects the wish for privacy by leaking names to the press. Another is the lawyer for a porno star who has found some nutcase who claims she attended parties over a period of years featuring gang rape, but isn't quite sure if you were in the same zip code.

None of the accuser's allegations can be substantiated. Everyone she says was there declines to corroborate, and she isn't even sure where 'there' is.

But, you got drunk in college, and you appear to have made fart jokes in your yearbook. So none of that counts.

I yield the rest of my time, my orange wig, my rubber nose, and big floppy shoes back to the teeny little car to the chair."

Regards,
Shodan
"WHAT?! This is slander! I didn't get drunk in college, I just liked beer! This whole thing is an insane witch hunt meant to make me look foolish and partisan! I bet that crazy bitch Hillary set me up, with help from her lizard people allies! Yeah, those liberal scumbags always have it out for me! Oh, I'm gonna get my payback when I'm on the bench, believe you me..."
  #39  
Old 11-13-2018, 07:43 AM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,319
Nevermind.

Last edited by Blalron; 11-13-2018 at 07:44 AM. Reason: Posted in wrong thread
  #40  
Old 11-13-2018, 09:37 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Right. But extraordinary claims should have at least good evidence to be believed.
So then the question becomes one of whether or not Ford's claim (or one like it, to back out to the broad scope of the OP) is "extraordinary", not whether or not the claim can be proven.
  #41  
Old 11-13-2018, 09:47 AM
Xema Xema is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
So then the question becomes one of whether or not Ford's claim (or one like it, to back out to the broad scope of the OP) is "extraordinary", not whether or not the claim can be proven.
I'm suggesting that if it is extraordinary, whether it can be proven starts to matter a lot.

And one aspect that should be considered is what difference it makes if the claim is believed or not. When the consequences are trivial (e.g. of what your co-worker had for lunch), that implies "ordinary". When they are profound, that's different.
  #42  
Old 11-13-2018, 09:56 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,574
With modern technology being as sophisticated as it is, it is possible for a woman (or man) to wear a "body cam" that is not obviously detectable to the casual observer. It would provide compelling evidence of any misdeeds.
  #43  
Old 11-13-2018, 09:57 AM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So the two people you mentioned were interviewed, and ignored?
Your claim is that people "without any exception" claim that Kavanaugh is a "person of character and integrity."
  • There are people who claim that Kavanaugh is a person of character and integrity.
  • There are people who claim the opposite.

So, either:
  • "Without any exception" is false, or
  • The interview process is one that intentionally pre-selects a panel of interviewees to exclude anyone from that second group. This renders any conclusions about the interviews meaningless. ("I'm the best guy in the world. Just ask anyone who thinks so!")
  #44  
Old 11-13-2018, 01:06 PM
Kadmos1 Kadmos1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
She could:
- Speak up while evidence is available
- Speak up before memory becomes so vague as to be worthless
- Avoid bringing forth her accusation decades after the fact, but at a carefully chosen time when an ulterior motive is plausible to everyone
Your 3 points here are what all sexual assault/rape victims should do. However, the fear of being labeled a "liar" (which some "victims" are at times) is such a barrier to doing that.
  #45  
Old 11-13-2018, 01:45 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
With modern technology being as sophisticated as it is, it is possible for a woman (or man) to wear a "body cam" that is not obviously detectable to the casual observer. It would provide compelling evidence of any misdeeds.
Perhaps but that would be something that perhaps IDK less than 5% - maybe even less than 1% - of women would do. Just like how most drivers still don't have dashboard cameras.


Also, the thread/OP is about how someone from decades ago (i.e., 1980s) is supposed to provide satisfactory "evidence" decades later about the crime........there just isn't (not about Ford, but in general)
  #46  
Old 11-13-2018, 11:21 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I think Kavanaugh is likely guilty but I'm still going to point out faulty logic.
Per her testimony she wasn't raped 35 years ago. She just thought it was going to happen. She didn't remember where, or when, or how she got there or how she got home. The people she listed as witnesses to the non-rape say they don't know what she's talking about.

This testimony was given by a professor of psychology who swore under oath that such a traumatic event was seared into her brain. In essence she testified against her ability to recall details.

How someone is supposed to prove anything at trial is simple. Bring evidence to support a case.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #47  
Old 11-14-2018, 12:43 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Per her testimony she wasn't raped 35 years ago. She just thought it was going to happen. She didn't remember where, or when, or how she got there or how she got home. The people she listed as witnesses to the non-rape say they don't know what she's talking about.

This testimony was given by a professor of psychology who swore under oath that such a traumatic event was seared into her brain. In essence she testified against her ability to recall details.
This is actually pretty classic for someone whop has suffered a highly traumatic event. Exquisite details of certain aspects of the event with complete obliviousness to other aspects. You will have people who can tell you every detail about a gun being pointed at them but unable to describe the face of the person pointing it at them. There is no particular reason she should remember anything before the attack particularly well so I'm not surprised that deosn't remember how she got to the party, and given that she was probably in total shock after the event its not surprising that she didn't remember how she got home. Even people who suffer recent trauma report that what happened afterwards is sort of a blur.

As far as other people at the party and even Kavenaugh himself. I'm not too surprised that they don't recall it. It wasn't traumatic for them. Girl who they were drunkenly trying to get frisky with runs off crying is just another bit of fun to laugh over and then get back to the party.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 11-14-2018 at 12:45 PM.
  #48  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:01 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,332
To late to add cite which basically reiterates everything I said above.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 11-14-2018 at 01:03 PM.
  #49  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:08 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
As far as other people at the party and even Kavenaugh himself. I'm not too surprised that they don't recall it. It wasn't traumatic for them. Girl who they were drunkenly trying to get frisky with runs off crying is just another bit of fun to laugh over and then get back to the party.
Leland Keyser was one of the people Ford says was at the party.
Quote:
"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," her attorney Howard Walsh wrote in a statement sent to the committee.
So it wasn't "I was never at a party where something traumatic happened", nor was it "I was never at a party where nothing traumatic happened". It was "I was never at a party with him at all". That doesn't sound like laughing off an attempted sexual assault on your best friend to me.

Regards,
Shodan
  #50  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:35 PM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,778
A party where there were 5 people, none of whom seem to be the kids of the owners, 3/5 disappeared into a room where loud music started being played and no one came up to investigate/join in (some party!), where one of them left suddenly leaving her pal behind without any means of travel and this was not commentated upon by her ditched pal or her parents, nor did anyone notice a sudden drop in her academic performance and personal relation, which she claimed happened.

She deserved to have her story told. But lets not pretend it was not about 48 cards short of a full deck even without the passage of time.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017