No, it’s not hard at all. A single report should have been made 36 years ago. Nothing. The letter that Feinstein is still sitting on was available to investigate during the hearings. Nothing.
Not even the slightest difficulty here.
I’m unaware that the Senate doesn’t routinely discuss the right timing and conditions for people who have information the Senate wants to hear. In fact, from what I understand, the Senate routinely reaches out to such folks and says things like “when are you available to testify”, etc.
What are you talking about? Is the a rule? Is this how you think it should be?
She did negotiate. It’s been in all the papers.
Are you kidding? Ford would have been treated abominably if she had come forward 36 years ago. Such accusations almost always backfired for accusers during that period, which is why victims almost never came forward.
Did you really believe that our society treated such accusations reasonably and decently 36 years ago?
Case in point… it appears that attempted rape was a misdemeanor back then in Maryland. Think about that.
Why don’t we have that with Ford? She and Kavanaugh have acknowledged knowing each other. That they attended the same school at the same time is also not in question.
An investigation could fairly easily establish whether Ford and Kavanaugh attended the same parties and social events during the summer she said the assault occurred, which would be analogous to nailing down that fondling occurred somewhere in the church but not necessarily where specifically in the church.
You don’t think investigators couldn’t ask Ford or Kanavaugh’s classmates whether they attended parties where both were present and there was opportunity for the assault to occur? There’s no reason to think there would be such witnesses in the priest situation but not Ford’s.
This was provided as a given in my scenario, since this would be trivially easy to prove. About as trivial as proving Ford socialized with Kavanaugh.
You pretty much didn’t show that at all, but thanks for playing.
Nitpick: they attended nearby schools, but not the same one.
there is no evidence of attempted rape. There’s nothing to think about.
I’m not sure what part of this is escaping everyone’s grasp of the obvious.
Yes my bad.
Are you unaware that statements can be evidence?
Survivor?
Is it your belief that people frequently, or even sometimes, die as the result of attempted rape?
And especially so in this case, when the alleged crime is said to have been perpetrated by a drunken juvenile torn between the attempt itself and wrestling with his buddy on the floor?
Testimony is a kind of evidence. This has pointed out to you previously in this thread.
Further nitpick: From news reports Kavanaugh has denied knowing Ford.
Speaking of nitpicks. I’m sure we all know this. I think the fair parsing of that statement was that we want evidence in addition to a self serving statement.
Read all about the usage of “victim” vs “survivor” in the context of rape and sexual assault here:
In short, some people prefer not to be called “victims”, and “survivor” has emerged as a common alternative that suggests strength rather than weakness.
Bingo!
This post completes my card!
I certainly do – I want a full investigation. Law enforcement very frequently proceeds with investigations based on a single report or statement.
Tell us what you had for lunch a month ago. Now describe a party you went to 36 years ago when you were in HS. Now present evidence backing up that memory. There is ZERO chance Ford can back up what she’s saying. Weigh that against a large number of female friends of Kavanaugh who vouch for his character.
Yet again, Feinstein was responsible for bringing this up in the hearings but DELIBERATELY withheld it.
Lets deal with it point by point.
Did not attend the same school and no the question of whether they knew each other has not been ascertained one way or the other.
Not at all. Attendance in a workplace is recorded as is an assignment to a particular place. Unless you have some really weird rules in the US, teenage parties don’t have ready records.
Again, they don’t have classmates in common, since they went to different schools and were in different years.
Are there written records of who socialised with who, like they are of who was assigned to which Church and when?
Take me as an example. I went to Law School in London, in an area known for having lots of law schools nearby, where the students bodies all regularly socialised. I also worked there after graduation. Lets say I am accused of a historical abuse in both places. One by a student of a different Uni at a party, but no recollection which and where, and the other by a junior at work (for the record I was not and did not:eek: ). No witnesses except for claim.
The Kavanaugh example is the former. All an investigator would be able to do is acertain that “yes they both went to Uni at the same time and also went to parties”. In the later, the fact of me and the presence of the junior can be easily verified and probably time stamped. They can also investigate other things, like how often I would be alone with the junior, whether anyone saw anything. This is the priests example you gave,
You are labouring under some misapprehensions of fact, please reconsider in light of the corrections provided.
The relevance of random internet person saying “ZERO chance…”?
You guessed it… zero!
Sounds reasonable. I withdraw my complaint, with thanks for the even-handed explanation.