How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case?

Her husband’s memory which is contradicted by the therapist’s note is not plenty.

When I levied an accusation of workplace harassment against a coworker, my boss talked to all of my coworkers individually. They actually told him things that I wasn’t even aware of, since I had been clueless to a number of signs and red flags. So they were able to corroborate my story without even knowing the specifics of my story.

Was their corroboration “proof”? No, but it was evidence. The weight of evidence leaned more in my direction than the accused.

Except that there couldn’t have been a fair investigation. Or, more precisely, there wouldn’t have been. Society at the time simply didn’t take claims of sexual assault seriously, especially when the accuser was a lower social class than the accused. Given that, is it any surprise that most women didn’t bother to report? It’s only now, in the past couple of years, that we’re even starting to make any progress on this, and we still have a long ways to go.

But even laying that aside: Suppose that, the minute she got away from the party, she called the police, and they immediately responded. What could they have found? A bunch of underaged rich boys having a drinking party. What other evidence would there have been? And we already have Kavanaugh’s own admission that he went to underage drinking parties, and nobody cared.

Keep in mind that Ford’s allegations played out in the political arena, where the only important thing is winning. Even if there was video of the incident, you’d have R’s trying to spin it that it was consensual and she was encouraging and enjoying it. If Kavanaugh had instead been a D nominee, you would have heard Lindsey Graham give a breathless rant about how her allegations need to be believed and the D’s were dragging the name of a good woman through the mud.

Did you read your own cite?

Note that the unidentified classmate does not claim to have witnessed the incident. Nor does anyone else.

One person who did not see it, and another anonymous person who also didn’t see it but heard about it, does not constitute “corroboration”.

Your assertion is false.


Well then, the Senate considered; and chose the give him the job.:stuck_out_tongue:

If by “contemporaneous corroboration” you mean inadmissible hearsay, people who were supposed to have been present denied recollection, the accuser herself was unsure about whether Kav was the perp another person who claimed to have heard about it from an eyewitness, found that eyewitness denying it, and oh the presence of a known flasher on campus, at the same time and place, who was not Kavanaugh, and of who there is a picture flashing, then yes, a lot of evidence.

I know this is bordering on “not the topic of this thread,” but . . .

. . . actually, false. More like "we have interviewed your colleagues, your co-workers, those who worked for you, people who have known you all your life. We have ignored anyone who says anything other than the fact that you have exemplary character.

“without exception” is . . . an obviously inaccurate way to describe or analogize the events of this past fall.

As to the OP, it depends on what you mean by “prove her case” and why you want her to do so.

There are plenty of actions that happened in the past (most of them) that are not “provable” but we somehow manage to come to fairly accurate and/or useful understandings of what happened; certainly with enough certainty to move forward in this world and not be immobilized by lack-of-truth.

In fact, as has already been mentioned/alluded to in this thread, the most shameful part of the whole Ford process is that adults who are fully aware that 99% of past events (particularly unremarkable ones) will leave behind no smoking gun, insisted that it was unreasonable to believe Ford without evidence.

I don’t think it is accurate to say that Ford’s allegation was ignored. She said she wanted not to pursue it, if the anonymous accusation was not sufficient to torpedo the nomination. It was after the hearings were more or less concluded that the Dems leaked it. Leaving aside that Ford was not a colleague, not a co-worker, had never worked for Kavanaugh, and far from knowing him all her life, had not had contact with him for decades.

Neither were Swetnick nor Ramirez, and their allegations were not ignored either. They were investigated, and found to be other than credible.


Nothing was ignored - your statement is other than factual.


There would have been plenty of opportunity for the police to work. The accuser was from a wealthy and influential family and it is unlikely she would have been ignored. The police could have gone to the party and arrested Judge and Kavanaugh. They would have had plenty of leverage to get Judge to flip on Kavanaugh, the other people at the party would have been witnesses. Kavanaugh would have had resources and his mother was a lawyer so it would not have been a slam dunk case but there would be a decent chance for a plea to a lesser crime.

Can you tell us who was ignored?

This is an impressive non-sequitur.

Everyone knows that direct evidence for most 30-year-old events is unavailable. It does not follow that an evidence- and corroboration-free assertion that something happened long ago thus should be believed.

It’s entirely reasonable to believe such an accusation could be true, and to look into it. When no evidence is found, it’s spectacularly unreasonable to nonetheless believe it’s true.

Shodan and Xema, maybe I wasn’t clear. I take exception to Shodan’s statement that “without any exception” everyone (presumably other than Ford) who knew Kavanaugh stated that he was a person of exemplary character.

Here are just two statements by people who worked with Kavanaugh who don’t think he is a person of “character and integrity”.

Your claim that his integrity was supported “without exception” is false. I never said Ford’s claim was ignored. I am making a statement about you and your argument, and how your claim is a false one.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. But I think I was.


Not a non-sequitur at all. The OP asks about “proving” a case. I think it is not surprising that there is no proof. Most things don’t have proof. Any one who demands that there be proof before believing a statement about past events is confused about how and why we determine things to be true.

In other words:

This is false on a few levels. First, someone claiming to have experienced something is evidence (how meaningful that evidence is is based on a lot of variables). So, there is evidence. Maybe flawed, but evidence nonetheless.

Second, given that someone claims something happened, it may or may not be reasonable to believe it’s true.

My coworker tells me they ate a bowl of soup for lunch last week. Is it unreasonable for me to believe it?

So the two people you mentioned were interviewed, and ignored?

Actually your coworker can’t remember if it was last week, or thirty five years ago. And cannot remember the restaurant, and says that Joe, Bill, and Sally were there, and Joe, Bill, and Sally all say they don’t recall having lunch together.


About half of you clearly cant read. Why should anyone take anything you have to say seriously when you refuse to take the OP seriously?


Do you just want the elevator pitch, or can I have a few days to prepare you a formal proposal?

I think almost anyone would agree.

Right. But extraordinary claims should have at least good evidence to be believed.

If your co-worker tells you he ate a bowl of soup for lunch, you tend to believe it without evidence - and it’s entirely reasonable to do so.

If he tells you he had lunch with your mother, who instructed him to tell you to hand over all your money, it would not be reasonable to believe this without strong evidence.

Without meaning to sound like a jerk you seem to be implying the goal of the US justice system is to punish those guilty of crimes such as rape and it’s purpose is for the victims of crimes to receive “justice”.

It’s actually not.

My entire life I’ve heard people of various different stripes complain about “the victims”, “the community”, “the public” or someone else not receiving justice but the reality of the situation is that none of those groups are entitled to justice. The only group of people entitled to “justice” in the US according to our judicial system are the defendants.

Our system is set up to ensure that those accused of crimes receive “due process” and fair trials and operates on the principal that it’s better to let ten guilty people go free than to punish one innocent man.

Such a system unfortunately is not going to help people in the situation of Dr. Ford.

Believing something and acting on it are NOT the same thing. . .Trust but verify!

If I call the police and tell them that my house has been robbed, they are going to believe me. They will come over to take my statement and begin an investigation. Even tho there is a good chance I could be lying about the whole thing, they will start from a place of belief.

And that is all someone who makes an accusation of sexual harassment or assault wants. To have the person they are telling to start from a place of belief. To not be dismissed as an overreaction or misunderstanding, that it was just a joke or that boys will be boys. Start with the assumption that this is real, and then investigate to find out if there is evidence to support the claim.

Now, I live in a big city and I am fully aware that lots of houses get robbed and that there may be nothing that the police can do to get my things back or to even find the person who did it. But by speaking up it puts the police on notice that this is happening in my neighborhood and maybe they can do something to prevent it from happening again to me or someone else. Even if I know who did it and tell the police, they’re not gonna just go and arrest someone on my sayso. They have to investigate and look for proof.

Likewise, people who make claims of sexual harassment or assault know that there maybe not enough evidence to actually punish the attacker, but it puts the attacker on notice that the behavior is under investigation and will not be tolerated further. And maybe there is evidence of the attack or a pattern of accusations, but you can’t find anything if you don’t look.

Many times it’s not about proving one’s case. It’s about being heard, it’s about being taken seriously, it’s about taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.


“WHAT?! This is slander! I didn’t get drunk in college, I just liked beer! This whole thing is an insane witch hunt meant to make me look foolish and partisan! I bet that crazy bitch Hillary set me up, with help from her lizard people allies! Yeah, those liberal scumbags always have it out for me! Oh, I’m gonna get my payback when I’m on the bench, believe you me…”


So then the question becomes one of whether or not Ford’s claim (or one like it, to back out to the broad scope of the OP) is “extraordinary”, not whether or not the claim can be proven.