I was under the impression that Maryland didn’t have a statute of limitations for this charge. Is that not correct?
Wait a sec… where on you corroborated/uncorroborated for these details in her story? You seem to be saying that there is evidence supporting these details which is the definition of corroboration.
I didn’t use the word “bullied” (not sure what you’re quoting). But in terms of how he’s fell short of treating a sexual assault accuser with kindness, decency, and respect – by not respecting her reasonable request for a full investigation; by not acceding to her reasonable request to subpoena Mark Judge; by pushing an unnecessary urgency and artificial timelines to the proceedings; just to start with.
That’ll earn you a warning, wonky. You should know you can’t insult other posters in Elections.
Don’t do it again.
Sorry, just saw your older post, I missed that. It’s the same one that states that the crime was a misdemeanor, so it seems I’m not the only one who missed it.
I’ll quote it here for the benefit of iiandyiiii, but with the quote-in-a-quote moved because nested quotes are a pain.
Hmm. Your link says there is not SoL, but what about 30 years ago?
And if she can’t identify the house, how can they determine it was in the county?
That was the one I read before. The issue seems to be whether there was a statute of limitations at the time of the alleged crime. It seems that there was, which could mean that it can no longer be investigated.
If that is the case, and if it was indeed a misdemeanor, then this really is all a fuss over nothing.
Her story is credible and I have no doubt about her veracity.
And smearing her is beyond reprehensible.
If the GOP was smart, they would stop attacking and smearing her, and bring in memory experts, who could show memories that old are not reliable.
But I firmly believe that she thinks her story happened. She is not lying.
The various details shown of Judge Ks young life show that it is certainly plausible.
travel records, photographs… and much much more. coming to us from a teenage party 36 years ago.
Like I said, not one shred of evidence. If there was then Feinstein would have introduced it. She didn’t.
Yes, there was another option, bring it up during the hearings. That option wasn’t chosen.
Investigations are the main way in which evidence is found. Law enforcement often starts an investigation based solely on a single report from an alleged victim.
Is this really a hard concept?
Nobody corroborated her story in the 1980s. She claims not to have told anyone until 2012, when she told her therapist a version that allegedly differs in detail and doesn’t mention Kavanaugh.
She’s stalling, hoping that Kavanaugh will go first so she can shape her testimony. Otherwise, she will just continue stalling until they have the vote so she can complain that she wasn’t heard.
Shit or get off the pot, lady.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t you worry. She will shit.
As someone who has read psychiatrists’ notes for patient histories that I was in the room when interviewed … no not important at all. The psychiatrist is not creating a legal documentation and their recollection of the story they were listening to was more fixed on the emotional valence, the persisting emotional impact of the trauma being recollected, and the appropriate empathic response to it. Great history recorders they aint.
What is important in terms of “credible” is that the story was told in the past.
Credible is not equal to unimpeachable. If this was a trial to convict someone of a crime I’d say one credible witness is insufficient to get beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt.
This is not that. To become a member of the SCOTUS there should nothing even close to any doubt that the person is not someone who lies about significant events.
I don’t understand what the necessary elements for establishing a credible allegation are, based on UV’s posts.
Let’s say a 48 year old man (John) just announces he was routinely molested by Priest Bob in the summer of 1982, while he served as altar boy. He says these incidents happened at his church, but he can’t remember where exactly. He also can’t remember exact dates. However, he vividly remembers Priest Bob undressing him on multiple occasions that summer and fondling his genitals. He can’t remember how many times exactly it happened but at least 3 times. The touching only stopped after he and his family moved out of state for unrelated reasons. The only person he’s ever told about this was his therapist 3 years ago, after he watched the movie Spotlight and started experiencing painful flashbacks.
Priest Bob (now Cardinal Bob) is in the running to become the next Pope.
Questions:
-
Would it be pointless to investigate this allegation because the facts suggest it would only just be “he said-he said?”
-
Would it be pointless to investigate this allegation because it happened decades ago and the statute of limitations has run out?
-
Should we not consider this a credible complaint even though available evidence shows Bob was a priest at the church at the time his accuser attended and served as altar boy? If no, what would make it credible?
-
Should we discount the allegation because the accuser can’t remember specific dates and times and locations where fondling took place, or how many times?
-
Should we discount the allegation because the accuser waited until the papal succession process started to come forward?
-
Is there anything about this scenario that makes the way we should evaluate its credibility substantially different than Ford’s allegation?
Right, the deadline wasn’t a deadline to see if she wanted to continue negotiating. Grassley needs to put a stop to this.
I know! If he allows negotiations to continue… then nothing bad would happen, other than perhaps a slight delay to the political timeline.
How horrible that would be! Certainly a reason to have a very hard line when negotiating with an alleged survivor of attempted rape over how exactly they can bring their story forward.
Yes. The fundamental difference here is that you have an actual verifiable link between the accuser and the accused, a place which is known and a time period which can be ascertained with investigation. You can also ask direct question from other people as to things like whether Father Bob would have the oppurtunity of being alone with an alter boy.
Church record can be sourced to match the time of a Father Bobs service with that of the alter boys.
It’s pretty much nothing like the Ford-Kavanaugh claims.
We keep covering the same grounds with this. When you testify in front of a Senate committee, you do not negotiate, you testify. It is arrogant of her and her attorney to think she is a special flower.