# 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:** 28
**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 11, 2018, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/541 "2018-12-11T16:00:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > In this case there is no proof the person making the claim expereienced it. without proof it’s bullshit. It is still evidence. That’s the point. Ramirez’s testimony is evidence that supports Dr. Ford’s assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. > [@Magiver](#): > > As you never had a position based on proof your position is based on a belief system. My position is many of Dr. Ford’s assertions have been corroborated. My position is based on the definition of the word and the straightforward application of that definition to the assertions in question given the available 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 11, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/542 "2018-12-11T16:05:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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 There is definitely corroboration of assertions made by Brett Kavanaugh and I never claimed otherwise. I don’t think you can say his testimony is corroborated by other parts of his testimony, and I have certainly never claimed that Dr. Ford’s testimony corroborates other parts of Dr. Ford’s testimony. ---
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/543 "2018-12-11T16:27:46Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I don’t think you can say his testimony is corroborated by other parts of his testimony, and I have certainly never claimed that Dr. Ford’s testimony corroborates other parts of Dr. Ford’s testimony. You may have misread what I posted. Your claim is that Ford’s accusation is corroborated by a different accusation made by a different person at a different time. If that’s the case, then Kavanaugh’s denial of Ford’s accusation is corroborated by his denial of the other accusation. If one accusation corroborates another, then one denial equally corroborates another. In which case, it is pretty much a wash. Likewise with the rest of it. You apparently believe that Ford’s accusation is corroborated by her statement that Kavanaugh was older and went to a nearby school, which is true. Kavanaugh said that Ford was younger and went to a nearby school, which is also true. Therefore, his denial is corroborated, and it’s a wash. So we then examine whether there is any other corroboration of the accusations, and other corroborations of the denials. There is no other corroboration of the accusations, and there is corroboration (in the sense you want to use) of Kavanaugh’s denials. So I ask again, why do you believe Ford based on the evidence, when there is way more evidence to believe Kavanaugh? Regards, Shodan ---
**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 11, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/544 "2018-12-11T17:29:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You apparently believe that Ford’s accusation is corroborated by her statement that Kavanaugh was older and went to a nearby school, which is true. I do not believe this. I have been very clear that I do not believe this. Dr. Ford’s assertion that Kavanaugh and Judge were older than her and went to a nearby school is an assertion that has been corroborated. I am not claiming that it is in itself corroboration of anything else. That assertion is corroborated, not corroboration for other assertions. If Kavanaugh did make or were to make a similar assertion, it would also be corroborated. ---
**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 11, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/545 "2018-12-11T17:31:27Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Ramirez’s testimony is evidence that supports Dr. Ford’s assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Why do you keep saying this? It’s factually false, as you’ve repeatedly been shown. Even if both events happened, they are independent. That someone sexually assaulted one person may make it statistically more likely that they committed further assaults, but says nothing whatsoever about a specific allegation. You cannot move from the general to the specific like that, only vice versa. You claim you understand and use logic on a regular basis, but it’s clear you don’t grasp how it works. ---
**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 11, 2018, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/546 "2018-12-11T18:03:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why do you keep saying this? It’s factually false, as you’ve repeatedly been shown. > > Even if both events happened, they are independent. That someone sexually assaulted one person may make it statistically more likely that they committed further assaults, but says nothing whatsoever about a specific allegation. You cannot move from the general to the specific like that, only vice versa. You claim you understand and use logic on a regular basis, but it’s clear you don’t grasp how it works. The two events are clearly and obviously not independent. We have two pieces of direct evidence in the form of testimony that attribute the same type of behavior to the same individual. The relationship is the individual and the type of behavior. This is exactly analogous to QUIGLEY v. WINTER which I linked to earlier. Quigley asserted that Winter sexually harassed her. Part of her case was testimony of other women that Winter sexually harassed at other times in other places. Quigley did not witness Winter harassing these other women. This recounting by other people of events at other times in other places was deemed to be admissible at trial. The admissibility of this testimony was challenged and upheld on appeal. ---
**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 11, 2018, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/547 "2018-12-11T19:19:39Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > The two events are clearly and obviously not independent. False. There’s really nothing more to say about this. You just don’t know how logic works. ---
**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 11, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/548 "2018-12-11T19:38:46Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > False. There’s really nothing more to say about this. You just don’t know how logic works. Honestly, I don’t see what this has to do with logic. You have certainly not convinced me that it does. The two events are related. I have spelled out the relationship. It is pretty plainly obviously there for anyone to see. Two claims that the same individual engaged in the same type of behavior are related even if the events described by each occurred at different times in different places. You can’t just magically wish them to be independent and make it so. I have given you a specific example of this type evidence being used in an actual trial. Did the lawyer who presented this evidence not understand logic? How about the judge who allowed it over the objections of the defendant’s counsel? Did the judge who upheld the admissibility of this evidence on appeal understand logic? ---
**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, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/549 "2018-12-11T21:04:53Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I do not believe this. I have been very clear that I do not believe this. > > Dr. Ford’s assertion that Kavanaugh and Judge were older than her and went to a nearby school is an assertion that has been corroborated. I am not claiming that it is in itself corroboration of anything else. Then it’s irrelevant to the accusation, as was pointed out pages ago. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 11, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/550 "2018-12-11T21:13:35Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Honestly, I don’t see what this has to do with logic. That explains a great deal. > [@](#): > > Two claims that the same individual engaged in the same type of behavior are related even if the events described by each occurred at different times in different places. You can’t just magically wish them to be independent and make it so. No, they are not. The truth of one claim has no bearing on the truth of another, which is why prior allegations or convictions are not allowed at trials, as they may bias the jury. As you have been. > [@](#): > > I have given you a specific example of this type evidence being used in an actual trial. Did the lawyer who presented this evidence not understand logic? How about the judge who allowed it over the objections of the defendant’s counsel? Did the judge who upheld the admissibility of this evidence on appeal understand logic? You did not provide such an example. From your cite “[t]he question whether evidence of discrimination [against other employees] by other supervisors is relevant in an individual ADEA case is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case.” You provided a case where related evidence was admitted. That has no bearing on whether unrelated evidence should be admitted, as in the Ford case. ---
**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 11, 2018, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/551 "2018-12-11T21:19:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then it’s irrelevant to the accusation, as was pointed out pages ago. > > Regards, > Shodan Maybe it’s irrelevant to the accusation, maybe it isn’t. I never made a claim one way or the other. It is still definitely a corroborated assertion. ---
**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, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/552 "2018-12-11T21:29:21Z")
Who cares what you claimed? It is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > It is still definitely a corroborated assertion. So what? Kavanaugh made a bunch of corroborated assertions, too. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 11, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/553 "2018-12-11T21:32:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You provided a case where related evidence was admitted. That has no bearing on whether unrelated evidence should be admitted, as in the Ford case. The related evidence was testimony that the same individual exhibited the same type of behavior toward a different person at another time in another place. ---
**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 11, 2018, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/554 "2018-12-11T21:37:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Who cares what you claimed? It is irrelevant. > So what? Kavanaugh made a bunch of corroborated assertions, too. > > Regards, > Shodan Great. Now we’re on the same page. Now consider this statement… “The trouble with Ford’s accusation is that it is pretty vague, and the details she does allege are either uncorroborated, or contradicted.” But now we agree that some of the details she did allege have been corroborated. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/555 "2018-12-12T01:59:38Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Great. Now we’re on the same page. > > Now consider this statement… > > “The trouble with Ford’s accusation is that it is pretty vague, and the details she does allege are either uncorroborated, or contradicted.” > > But now we agree that some of the details she did allege have been corroborated. Shodan was making light of your position. ---
**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 12, 2018, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/556 "2018-12-12T04:54:28Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Shodan was making light of your position. Maybe, but he makes an excellent point. Both Ford and Kavanaugh made a bunch of corroborated assertions. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/557 "2018-12-12T10:53:26Z")
Kavanaugh’s claims that nothing happened were indeed repeated by people who would themselves get in trouble if they didn’t say so. True, and meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/558 "2018-12-12T13:42:33Z")
What trouble did Ms. Keyser get into for saying that she had never been to that party, or any other with Kavanaugh? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/559 "2018-12-12T13:47:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What trouble did Ms. Keyser get into for saying that she had never been to that party, or any other with Kavanaugh? She never said that. What you’ve repeated over and over again about Keyser’s words is factually false. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/560 "2018-12-12T13:54:05Z")
The reference was to Kav’s bros who don’t dare implicate themselves as accomplices or even participants. If they were there, they can’t say so, and if they weren’t there, they wouldn’t. So their statements to that effect have no significance on determining factuality. Glad to clear that up for ya. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383.md?page=29)