# How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2018, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383 "2018-11-12T00:53:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/521 "2018-12-09T18:05:49Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Two pieces of eyewitness testimony that attribute the same behavior to the same individual are both direct evidence and tend to support each other. All the boxes are checked to rigorously satisfy the precise and agreed upon definition of corroboration. Who corroborated Ramirez’s claim that she was molested by Cavenaugh? It couldn’t be Ford, because Ford has never claimed that she was present when Ramirez was drinking. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/522 "2018-12-09T18:07:07Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > [Direct evidence.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence) > > Both Dr. Ford’s and Deborah Ramirez’s assertions that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted each of them are direct evidence because they are relating what they directly experienced. It is unquestionable that this is direct evidence regardless of whether or not you believe them. You didn’t say “corroborated”. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/523 "2018-12-09T18:07:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We do not have evidence of two eye witness claims. We just have the claims. As explained in the previous post, the claims themselves are direct evidence. This is just a fact. It’s what direct evidence means. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/524 "2018-12-09T18:14:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You didn’t say “corroborated”. Well spotted. You didn’t say “formication”. Is that how this game works? We point out words that other posters didn’t say? I was defending my use of the word “unquestionably” not the word “corroborated”. When someone testifies about something he or she directly experienced that is called direct evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/525 "2018-12-09T18:37:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Who corroborated Ramirez’s claim that she was molested by Cavenaugh? It couldn’t be Ford, because Ford has never claimed that she was present when Ramirez was drinking. This is another post where a poster is using a much stronger, more restrictive definition of corroborated than the one agreed upon in, or really any posted to, this thread. Corroboration does not require two people witnessing the exact event at the exact time and place, despite **Steophan** ’s and now **doorhinge** ’s insistence that it does. The actual definition is much weaker than that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/526 "2018-12-09T18:51:36Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > When someone testifies about something he or she directly experienced that is called direct evidence. And without proof it’s unsubstantiated. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/527 "2018-12-09T19:08:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > And without proof it’s unsubstantiated. Maybe, maybe not. I am not claiming that proof exists or that it is substantiated so I am not obligated to defend such claims. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/528 "2018-12-09T22:17:08Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Each of these statements is a direct consequence of a straightforward rigorous application of the definition of corroborated. None of them are false. They are all false. Statements about unrelated events have no evidentiary value on each other, and claiming that an accusation about someone is corroborated is making a claim about their guilt. Unless your definition of “corroboration” has no relevance to the truth of the allegation, there’s no way it could not affect the likelihood of their guilt. > [@](#): > > I went to a great deal of trouble to establish a mutually agreeable definition of corroborated for the purposes of this thread. That definition does not include the word proof. The definition you linked to does not contain the word proof. Some other thing you click on when you go to the definition of the word corroborated that you linked to does include the word proof, but that doesn’t tell us about the carefully established definition of corroboration that we are using in this discussion. That “some other thing” was synonyms, for those who didn’t follow the link. I would link to a definition of “synonym”, but I fear you would misunderstand that as well. A coroborated statement is one that has supporting evidence, and so - in the absence of contradictory evidence - is confirmed. That is to say, proven, at least to the standard of preponderance of evidence. If you are only using “proven” to mean things that are certain, or those beyond reasonable doubt, or for that matter a 5 sigma probability, then you are excluding most usage, either formal or casual. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, way upthread I said the thing that was leading many of you to incorrect conclusions was that you were conflating ‘corroborated’ with ‘proved’. I was assured that that was in no way the case and that it I was the one that didn’t know what words meant. Now you, **Steophan** specifically, are saying that corroboration means proof. It does not. Sometimes corroboration comes in the form of proof, hence the inclusion of proof in the list of synonyms of corroboration, sometimes corroboration falls well short of proof. You are the one repeatedly reaching incorrect conclusion, as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way evidence works. You also fail to understand that both “proof” and “corroboration” are spectrums, and “corroborated” is almost entirely within the spectrum “proven” - the only case where it wouldn’t be is where there is evidence to support a claim, but stronger evidence to reject it. > [@](#): > > Corroborated is a much weaker characterization of the truth value of a statement than proved. At best, that’s only true in casual usage, as I’ve just shown. To be honest, before I looked closer into the full meaning of the words, I’d probably have agreed with that statement, though. Regardless, Ford’s allegations are neither corroborated nor proven, as there is no evidence that supports the allegations. > [@](#): > > Finally, it’s **Dr. Turbo** not **Mr. Turbo**. PhD Mathematics. I’d rather you didn’t use an honorific, but if you’re going to you may as well use the right one. My apologies, I should have been able to tell from your posting in this thread that you are an expert it a specific, narrow field. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/529 "2018-12-09T22:18:23Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Maybe, maybe not. I am not claiming that proof exists or that it is substantiated so I am not obligated to defend such claims. Maybe check that synonyms section I linked to before claiming that you’re not talking about substantiation. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2018, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/530 "2018-12-09T23:25:54Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > They are all false. Statements about unrelated events have no evidentiary value on each other, and claiming that an accusation about someone is corroborated is making a claim about their guilt. I have demonstrated that the events are not unrelated. The events are clearly and obviously related in at least two very important ways. Claiming that an accusation about someone is corroborated is making a claim the existence of evidence that tends to support that claim. That’s the definition agreed upon for this thread. A list of synonyms is not a definition and it definitely is not the definition we agreed on. > [@Steophan](#): > > A coroborated statement is one that has supporting evidence, and so - in the absence of contradictory evidence - is confirmed. That is to say, proven, at least to the standard of preponderance of evidence. If you are only using “proven” to mean things that are certain, or those beyond reasonable doubt, or for that matter a 5 sigma probability, then you are excluding most usage, either formal or casual. Is this something you just made up? Do you have a link to anything that shows that this definition of corroborated is anything other than unique to you? > [@Steophan](#): > > My apologies, I should have been able to tell from your posting in this thread that you are an expert it a specific, narrow field. The specific narrow field in question consists almost entirely of the construction of logical arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/531 "2018-12-10T00:37:38Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Is this something you just made up? Do you have a link to anything that shows that this definition of corroborated is anything other than unique to you? Yes, the definition I linked to a few posts ago. > [@](#): > > The specific narrow field in question consists almost entirely of the construction of logical arguments. It’s truly astonishing that I failed to realise that. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/532 "2018-12-10T01:07:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes, the definition I linked to a few posts ago. That link had all that stuff about preponderance of the evidence and five sigma and what not? I didn’t see that. In fact, that seems a lot like stuff you squeezed in there. Can you put your definition of corroboration in words in this thread please? Something along the lines of, “An assertion is corroborated if a, b, c, …” Where a, b, c, or as many or as few things required for an assertion to be corroborated. Can you state your definition of corroborated in such a way that the minimum elements of corroboration are explicit. Your link to Oxford Living Dictionaries says, “Corroboration: Evidence which confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation.” This seems pretty consistent with the definition I’ve been using in this thread. The statement, “An assertion is corroborated if other evidence exists that tends to support it,” doesn’t seem inconsistent with the definition you linked to in any meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/533 "2018-12-10T03:17:26Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Maybe, maybe not. I am not claiming that proof exists or that it is substantiated so I am not obligated to defend such claims. there is no gray area here. Without proof it’s unsubstantiated. You’re obligated to defend your position that the claims made are corroborated by verifiable facts. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/534 "2018-12-10T03:29:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > there is no gray area here. Without proof it’s unsubstantiated. Even if there is no proof and it is unsubstantiated, it doesn’t magically become not evidence. A person’s testimony about something they directly experienced is direct evidence. Proof or not. Substantiated or not. Still evidence. > [@Magiver](#): > > You’re obligated to defend your position that the claims made are corroborated by verifiable facts. This is a poor representation of my position. I’ll defend my position, not some funhouse mirror version of it. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/535 "2018-12-10T04:15:13Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > The statement, “An assertion is corroborated if other evidence exists that tends to support it,” doesn’t seem inconsistent with the definition you linked to in any meaningful way. Evidence either does or does not support an assertion, where do you get “tends to” from? An assertion is corroborated if there exists evidence that supports it, and it is proven if the evidence that supports it is sufficiently stronger than that which refutes it. In all your examples, which involve independent events, the evidence about one event does not support the others. All your questions about the exact meaning of corroborate are simply there to avoid this simple point. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evidence and proof. Your use of the phrase “tends to” demonstrates that you think these are matters of opinion. They are not, they are matters of fact. It is a fact that there is no evidence in the public domain that supports Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her, and no one’s opinion can change that. If you choose to believe her despite the lack of evidence, have the balls to say that’s what you’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/536 "2018-12-10T05:19:42Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Evidence either does or does not support an assertion, where do you get “tends to” from? An assertion is corroborated if there exists evidence that supports it, and it is proven if the evidence that supports it is sufficiently stronger than that which refutes it. I’m not 100% sure where I picked up the, “Tends to support,” language. I Googled the definition, cut and pasted one that I found into this thread, and then asked for input as to whether this definition sufficed. I’ll go so far as to say I begged for input, especially from those who disagreed with me. I’m certainly not trying to squeeze in the “Tends to support,” language to pull a fast one. I’m not sure it needs to be, “tends to support,” rather than, “supports,” and I don’t think that really changes anything I’ve said. That said, I’ll stick with the, “Tends to support,” language for now because that is the version we agreed to when a great deal of effort was put into nailing down a definition of “corroborated” and I’m reluctant to change it now without the consent of more of the people involved in that discussion. For the record I actually roughly agree with your characterization of the difference between corroborated and proven. It seemed like you were arguing that there was no difference a while back, so that’s something. > [@Steophan](#): > > In all your examples, which involve independent events, the evidence about one event does not support the others. All your questions about the exact meaning of corroborate are simply there to avoid this simple point. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evidence and proof. Your use of the phrase “tends to” demonstrates that you think these are matters of opinion. They are not, they are matters of fact. It is a fact that there is no evidence in the public domain that supports Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh assaulted her, and no one’s opinion can change that. My examples do not involve independent events. Point to a specific example and I will show how the events are connected if you don’t understand. My posts about the exact meaning of corroborate were intended put everyone on the same page, at least about the definition, before we got into the meat of the argument. You know, so someone wouldn’t weirdly nitpick two words in the definition like several hundred posts latter. It’s kind of annoying that you are attacking the definition I posted now after my many requests from at least a week ago for affirmation or rejection of that particular definition. I do not have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of evidence and proof. Everything I have refered to as evidence is evidence and I am purposely avoiding discussing proof. It’s not because I don’t understand proof, it’s because it is not relevant. I explained my use of the phrase “tends to” above. It is a fact that Deborah Ramirez’s testimony that Brett Kavanuagh, while drunk, sexaully assaulted her is evidence that supports Dr. Ford’s claim that Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her. This is not a matter of opinion. These are not independent events. They are not independent because they both involve Brett Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulting a woman. The relationship between these two events is quite strong and quite clear. It is not a matter of opinion that they are not independent, it is a fact. > [@Steophan](#): > > If you choose to believe her despite the lack of evidence, have the balls to say that’s what you’re doing. I believe her because of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/537 "2018-12-10T05:24:05Z")
Here’s [one example](https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/corroborate)… > [@](#): > > Corroborating evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2018, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/538 "2018-12-10T05:51:49Z")
[QUIGLEY v. WINTER](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1522591.html) > [@](#): > > Winter next insists the district court made the following evidentiary errors:  (1) admitting “me too” testimony from three of Winter’s former female tenants; > [@](#): > > Winter first claims the district court erred in admitting the testimony of Winter’s former tenants, Lisa Scofield, Kayla Mobley, and Holly Cook. These three women testified Winter also subjected them to sexual harassment while they were Winter’s tenants.   Winter claims the testimony of these three women was irrelevant because there was no evidence Quigley knew the women or observed any of the events to which they testified. > [@](#): > > Affording the district court broad discretion, we hold the district court properly performed its gatekeeping function and did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of Winter’s three former tenants. So part of the plaintiff’s case was “me too” testimony from other victims harassed at other times and places by the defendant. The plaintiff didn’t witness these other incidents or even know the victims. This was found to be admissible evidence. Apparently this kind of thing is called pattern and practice evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2018, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/539 "2018-12-11T02:11:44Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Even if there is no proof and it is unsubstantiated, it doesn’t magically become not evidence. A person’s testimony about something they directly experienced is direct evidence. Proof or not. Substantiated or not. Still evidence. In this case there is no proof the person making the claim expereienced it. without proof it’s bullshit. > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > This is a poor representation of my position. I’ll defend my position, not some funhouse mirror version of it. As you never had a position based on proof your position is based on a belief system. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2018, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/540 "2018-12-11T14:01:18Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I believe her because of the evidence. Why don’t you believe Kavanaugh because of the evidence? His allegation that he did not assault Ford is corroborated by his statement that he didn’t assault Rodriquez, that he stated that Ford was younger than he, by the four other people who say there was no party, by the 65 people who say they never witnessed any such behavior on his part, and by his calendar that corroborates his statement that he was not at any such party for most of the days in June. His statement that he did not assault Rodriguez is corroborated by his testimony that he didn’t assault Ford or Swetnick, and by Rodriquez’ statement that she was too drunk to remember much, and by other people who said he never did anything of the sort. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383.md?page=28)