# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 29
**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, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/561 "2018-12-12T14:06:17Z")
> [@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. None of the details that Ford provided that would tend to corroborate her accusation have themselves been corroborated, and some have been contradicted. The accusation _is_ pretty vague. She doesn’t remember exactly where or when it happened, she doesn’t recall how she got there or how she got home, and her therapist says she earlier said it was four men who attacked her, not two. The details she provided are: [ul][li]That she was at a party. There is no corroboration that the party ever took place.[/li][li]That she drank one beer. There is no corroboration of how much she drank, how little, or if she drank anything at all.[/li][li]That Kavanaugh was at the party. There is no corroboration that Kavanaugh was there.[/li][li]That Mark Judge was there. There is no corroboration that Judge was there.[/li][li]That PJ was there. There is no corroboration that PJ was there.[/li][li]That Keyser was there. There is no corroboration that Keyser was there, and Keyser contradicts Ford’s statement that she was ever at any party with Kavanaugh.[/li][li]That Kavanaugh assaulted her. There is no corroboration that Kavanaugh assaulted her.[/ul][/li] > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. This doesn’t clear anything up. PJ was not accused of being either a witness or an accomplice, and he agrees with everyone else, including Keyser. Keyser was not a witness, nor an accomplice, and not a “bro” of Kavanaugh’s. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > She never said that. What you’ve repeated over and over again about Keyser’s words is factually false. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. 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, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/562 "2018-12-12T14:28:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. Keep telling myself a true and accurate rendition of the facts? I will, thank you. Why won’t you? Why are you falsely relating what Keyser said? ---
**Author:** ![Dingbang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac8455/32.png) [@Dingbang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dingbang)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/563 "2018-12-12T16:54:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Keep telling myself a true and accurate rendition of the facts? I will, thank you. Why won’t you? Why are you falsely relating what Keyser said? How is Shodan falsely relating what Keyser said? She said, through a letter presented to the committee by her attorney and at her direction, that although she believed Ford’s account she has no recollection of the party in question or being at any party at any time with Kavanaugh. The letter and her attorney’s statements are unequivocal. Are you insisting that it doesn’t count because she didn’t physically sit in the chair and vocalize those words from her own mouth? > **[Christine Blasey Ford's friend clarifies statement about alleged assault by...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-friend-leland-keyser-clarifies-statement-about-alleged-assault-by-brett-kavanaugh/)** > > Leland Keyser sends letter to the Judiciary Committee reiterating that while she doesn't remember the party in question, she believes Ford ---
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/564 "2018-12-12T16:57:05Z")
> [@Dingbang](#): > > How is Shodan falsely relating what Keyser said? She said, through a letter presented to the committee by her attorney and at her direction, that although she believed Ford’s account she has no recollection of the party in question or being at any party at any time with Kavanaugh. The letter and her attorney’s statements are unequivocal. Are you insisting that it doesn’t count because she didn’t physically sit in the chair and vocalize those words from her own mouth? > > [Christine Blasey Ford's friend clarifies statement about alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-friend-leland-keyser-clarifies-statement-about-alleged-assault-by-brett-kavanaugh/) That’s not what **Shodan** said. You correctly related the facts of what Keyser said. **Shodan** said something different that was false. Hint: “I don’t remember that happening” is very, very different from “That never happened”. ---
**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 12, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/565 "2018-12-12T18:14:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Hint: “I don’t remember that happening” is very, very different from “That never happened”. “I don’t remember that happening” is evidence that it didn’t happen. Maybe not strong evidence, depending on how much we trust their recollection, but it is evidence. Depending on the standard of proof we require, it may be enough to count as proof. If the standard is prepnderance of evidence, then multiple people who don’t remember something they could reasonably be expected to remember would suffice. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/566 "2018-12-12T18:21:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > “I don’t remember that happening” is evidence that it didn’t happen. Maybe not strong evidence, depending on how much we trust their recollection, but it is evidence. > > Depending on the standard of proof we require, it may be enough to count as proof. If the standard is prepnderance of evidence, then multiple people who don’t remember something they could reasonably be expected to remember would suffice. Whatever you’re going on about has nothing to do with my last couple of posts. ---
**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 12, 2018, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/567 "2018-12-12T22:44:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Whatever you’re going on about has nothing to do with my last couple of posts. I was refuting your claim that > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “I don’t remember that happening” is very, very different from “That never happened”. They are far from “very, very different”, and in the absence of positive evidence of the negative fact that it never happened, they are the absolute best you can expect from witness evidence. Your insistence that Ford’s (or whoever, as this thread is technically about the general case) memory should be accepted as evidence that the thing happened, but others memories that it did not do not count is problematic, demonstrating extreme bias against the accused in defiance of basic morality. As a rule, you’re not expected to prove a negative in most cases, which includes not being expected to prove you were not in a particular palce at a particular time. It’s the job of the accuser (whether the individual, the courts, the media or whoever) to prove you were. If multiple people do not remember an event, but one person does but cannot provide supporting evidence, it did not happen. ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/568 "2018-12-12T22:55:50Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Your insistence that Ford’s (or whoever, as this thread is technically about the general case) memory should be accepted as evidence that the thing happened, but others memories that it did not do not count is problematic, demonstrating extreme bias against the accused in defiance of basic morality. I’ve insisted no such thing. Once again, you’re falsely attributing things to me, with no cites and no basis. Not sure why you do this over and over and over again, but it’s annoying and I wish you’d stop. It’s really not that hard to be careful and cite claims that you’re making about other posters. **Shodan** said something that was false, and I pointed out that what he said was false. That’s all that I said. ---
**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 12, 2018, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/569 "2018-12-12T22:59:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **Shodan** said something that was false, and I pointed out that what he said was false. That’s all that I said. What he said was not false, as I explained in my posts. You are incorrectly weighing the evidence based on your bias, not on its inherent reliability, and believing Ford over multiple others. ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/570 "2018-12-12T23:45:30Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What he said was not false, as I explained in my posts. You are incorrectly weighing the evidence based on your bias, not on its inherent reliability, and believing Ford over multiple others. Your explanation does not change the meaning of the words Keyser said. Your explanation, in fact, was about something different (if I read it right, you were talking about how the total evidence should be considered and analyzed, which is irrelevant to what I said). It’s a fact that Keyser said that she didn’t remember the party. It’s false to say that she said the party never happened. The second is what I challenged, because it’s false. Based on the totality of what Keyser has said, it’s very likely that if you asked her “do you think that party happened?”, she’d say “yes”, because she’s said that she believes Ford’s account is accurate. She just doesn’t remember it. Thus, it’s factually false to say that Keyser said that the party didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/571 "2018-12-13T00:05:49Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > There you go with, “proof,” again. This isn’t about proof. Then we are in the wrong thread. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/572 "2018-12-15T16:36:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Hint: “I don’t remember that happening” is very, very different from “That never happened”. How is that false? ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/573 "2018-12-15T20:37:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > How is that false? Eh I wouldn’t characterize it as “very, very different” but it ain’t the same either. One states that a witness has no recall of an event but still allows for the possibility, to some degree or another, that the event may have occurred. The other reflects the witness’s belief that the event did not factually occur. The difference could be subtle or pretty determinative based on facts and context. Someone who can’t recall a disputed event which purportedly happened very recently and in their presence carries a lot more evidential weight than someone testifying that they cannot recall an event from long in the past. People make terrible eye witnesses for a lot of different reasons, long-term memory only being one factor ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383/574 "2018-12-15T21:33:30Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > Eh I wouldn’t characterize it as “very, very different” but it ain’t the same either. One states that a witness has no recall of an event but still allows for the possibility, to some degree or another, that the event may have occurred. The other reflects the witness’s belief that the event did not factually occur. The difference could be subtle or pretty determinative based on facts and context. Someone who can’t recall a disputed event which purportedly happened very recently and in their presence carries a lot more evidential weight than someone testifying that they cannot recall an event from long in the past. People make terrible eye witnesses for a lot of different reasons, long-term memory only being one factor Nicely put and I would agree. I would add that a person could make both statements with the same intent. I would also say from a legal point it’s much safer to say you don’t recall something even if you meant it didn’t happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-someone-like-christine-ford-supposed-to-prove-her-case/824383.md?page=28)