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]
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.