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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
Then it’s irrelevant to the accusation, as was pointed out pages ago.
Regards,
Shodan
That explains a great deal.
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.
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.
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.
Who cares what you claimed? It is irrelevant.
So what? Kavanaugh made a bunch of corroborated assertions, too.
Regards,
Shodan
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.
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.
Maybe, but he makes an excellent point.
Both Ford and Kavanaugh made a bunch of corroborated assertions.
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.
What trouble did Ms. Keyser get into for saying that she had never been to that party, or any other with Kavanaugh?
Regards,
Shodan
She never said that. What you’ve repeated over and over again about Keyser’s words is factually false.
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.