No it’s not. There is no evidence to the validity of either assertion.
there is no evidence that kavanaugh was ever at a party with Ford.
Testimony is a form of evidence.
Ah, so that meaning is corroborated then.
Any actual evidence that either event occurred, and any connection between the two alleged events. There could be a million unconnected, unsupported allegations and there would be no corroboration.
You don’t know what corroboration is, and should stop talking about it, as you are embarrassing yourself.
You have repeatedly claimed that, you started off claiming that the fact that Kavanaugh and Judge were a year or two older than her corroborates her story.
Your example is false. It does not, it tells us exactly nothing about Ford’s allegation.
Person A claims I went to the shop on Monday. Person B claims I went to the shop last Thursday. Neither claim supports, or contradicts the other - they are entirely independent. Even proof to any level that you care to name that I went to the shop on Thursday says nothing about where I went on Monday. They are independent events, just like these alleged crimes are.
And yes, this applies to Bill Cosby, or Bill Clinton, or any other serial abuser you care to name, just as much as it applies to Kavanaugh, or you, or anyone else not shown to be an abuser at all. There’s a reason that other crimes can#t be brought up at trial.
I have never claimed that. Not once.
Then Ford’s allegation is uncorroborated.
So is Rodriguez’, and so is Swetnick, all for the same reasons. None of the witnesses to all these allegations back up the allegation. Rodriguez, in fact, doesn’t even back up her own allegation - she claims she was too drunk to remember clearly.
Regards,
Shodan
I realize that this is not concrete proof of anything, but in regards to Ms. Ramirez, I just thought that it would be worth adding to the overall discussion.
For the past several years, I have served as the organizer of a mutual support group/tequilla appreciation society for gentlemen who indecently exposed themselves to Hispanic co-eds at college keg parties throughout Connecticut during the 1980’s, and Brett Kavanaugh has only attended two meetings in total, the second of which he left after only 45 minutes or so, and as he was walking out he was said to have been overheard muttering to himself, “Aww, hell, I don’t even know if I really belong here or not…”
Non sequitur.
Rodriguez? Try harder.
You are mistaken.
Who corroborated Ramirez’s story? Or do you accept any un-corroborated story as corroboration of Ford’s claim?
You also forgot to add that you seem to have painted yourself into a corner, and that you don’t seem to be able to talk your way out of it. Maybe you should finish your “point by corroborated point” gambit again. That was fun.
Are these real questions? We have two pieces of direct evidence that tend to support each other. That is corroboration.
No, we don’t. Why do you keep making this false claim?
We have Dr. Ford’s testimony that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. That is direct evidence.
We have Deborah Ramirez’s testimony that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. That is direct evidence.
Those two pieces of evidence attribute the same type of behavior to the the same individual. Thus they tend to support each other.
That is rigorous adherence to the definition of corroboration.
Those are claims- allegations- not evidence.
That’s what they’re attempting to prove.
Multiple accusations can serve as corroboration; on their own they’re extremely weak. That’s part of why MO is a thing: Independent claims that are not informed of each other but accuse the same perpetrator and reveal the same MO are fairly strong correlation because there’s no possibility of cross-contamination or borrowing details.
The issue can be demonstrated by the Kavanaugh hearings, actually. Did you hear about the man who claimed some woman in his family was raped by Kavanaugh on I think his boat- that he confessed he made to fabricate evidence? Or the woman who claimed she wrote a letter that Judge and Kavanaugh raped her in the back of a car; in both cases after the initial allegation was made public, and admitted she made it up because she wanted attention? Grassley is requesting FBI action and legal action in both cases.
Ramirez claims that someone that may have been Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. That’s a different pathology than attempted sexual assault.
In short, for those claims to be considered corroborated, they need to each individually stand on their own to some degree. And they don’t.
Testimony is evidence.
Is this something you just made up?
I went to great lengths to establish the definition of corroborated for this discussion…
An assertion is corroborated if there is other evidence that tends to support it.
Not…
An assertion that stands on its own is corroborated if there is other evidence that stands on its own that tends to support it.
We’re well past the point in the discussion where you can slip in a much more restrictive definition of corroborated unnoticed.
No, you have two pieces of allegedly direct evident that tends to support each other. You still need corroboration for Ramirez’s claim, just as you still need corroboration of Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh.
Allegedly? Testimony is unquestionably direct evidence.
I need anything. Dr. Ford’s assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez’s assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
Oops. That was supposed to be…
I don’t need anything. Dr. Ford’s assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk is corroborated by Deborah Ramirez’s assertion that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while he was drunk. And vice versa.
Would you also say that a claim from any person that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them is corroborated by the fact that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted Andrea Constand - the victim for which he was convicted?