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

I’m suggesting that if it is extraordinary, whether it can be proven starts to matter a lot.

And one aspect that should be considered is what difference it makes if the claim is believed or not. When the consequences are trivial (e.g. of what your co-worker had for lunch), that implies “ordinary”. When they are profound, that’s different.

With modern technology being as sophisticated as it is, it is possible for a woman (or man) to wear a “body cam” that is not obviously detectable to the casual observer. It would provide compelling evidence of any misdeeds.

Your claim is that people “without any exception” claim that Kavanaugh is a “person of character and integrity.”

[ul]
[li]There are people who claim that Kavanaugh is a person of character and integrity.[/li][li]There are people who claim the opposite.[/li][/ul]

So, either:

[ul]
[li]“Without any exception” is false, or[/li][li]The interview process is one that intentionally pre-selects a panel of interviewees to exclude anyone from that second group. This renders any conclusions about the interviews meaningless. (“I’m the best guy in the world. Just ask anyone who thinks so!”)[/li][/ul]

Your 3 points here are what all sexual assault/rape victims should do. However, the fear of being labeled a “liar” (which some “victims” are at times) is such a barrier to doing that.

Perhaps but that would be something that perhaps IDK less than 5% - maybe even less than 1% - of women would do. Just like how most drivers still don’t have dashboard cameras.
Also, the thread/OP is about how someone from decades ago (i.e., 1980s) is supposed to provide satisfactory “evidence” decades later about the crime…there just isn’t (not about Ford, but in general)

Per her testimony she wasn’t raped 35 years ago. She just thought it was going to happen. She didn’t remember where, or when, or how she got there or how she got home. The people she listed as witnesses to the non-rape say they don’t know what she’s talking about.

This testimony was given by a professor of psychology who swore under oath that such a traumatic event was seared into her brain. In essence she testified against her ability to recall details.

How someone is supposed to prove anything at trial is simple. Bring evidence to support a case.

This is actually pretty classic for someone whop has suffered a highly traumatic event. Exquisite details of certain aspects of the event with complete obliviousness to other aspects. You will have people who can tell you every detail about a gun being pointed at them but unable to describe the face of the person pointing it at them. There is no particular reason she should remember anything before the attack particularly well so I’m not surprised that deosn’t remember how she got to the party, and given that she was probably in total shock after the event its not surprising that she didn’t remember how she got home. Even people who suffer recent trauma report that what happened afterwards is sort of a blur.

As far as other people at the party and even Kavenaugh himself. I’m not too surprised that they don’t recall it. It wasn’t traumatic for them. Girl who they were drunkenly trying to get frisky with runs off crying is just another bit of fun to laugh over and then get back to the party.

To late to add cite which basically reiterates everything I said above.

Leland Keyser was one of the people Ford says was at the party.

So it wasn’t “I was never at a party where something traumatic happened”, nor was it “I was never at a party where nothing traumatic happened”. It was “I was never at a party with him at all”. That doesn’t sound like laughing off an attempted sexual assault on your best friend to me.

Regards,
Shodan

A party where there were 5 people, none of whom seem to be the kids of the owners, 3/5 disappeared into a room where loud music started being played and no one came up to investigate/join in (some party!), where one of them left suddenly leaving her pal behind without any means of travel and this was not commentated upon by her ditched pal or her parents, nor did anyone notice a sudden drop in her academic performance and personal relation, which she claimed happened.

She deserved to have her story told. But lets not pretend it was not about 48 cards short of a full deck even without the passage of time.

I’m not surprised nobody can recall it as there’s no indication there was a party in the first place.

So, again, if you want to prove a case you have to have a case to start with. There is no indication at all that any of this took place.

(post shortened)

No one could substantiate any of Ford’s claims. Ford provided the names of several people who she claimed could substantiate her claim. Not one of Ford’s chosen witnesses verified Ford’s story.

There were several others, who admittedly were not present, have said that they believe Ford’s claim. That might sound all well and good to those people who desperately wanted something to have actually happened, but Ford’s own choice of witnesses could not/did not substantiate Ford’s claim.

To return to the OP: One collapsing tautology argument raised by rape awareness activists is “a women aren’t believed when they come forward so they don’t for years” How do they know they won’t be believed?

Come forward when it happens and forensic evidence is available, and you can have corroboration. You have nearly a 100% chance of it devolving into he said/she said the longer you wait. If you wait 35 years, you have allowed that to become the case. That’s not victim blaming, that is an observation of what is the case

It’s self fulfilling. You go to the police with signs of trauma and do a rape kit, they investigate and get current witnesses, it’s not merely about your word. I understand the urge to say word should be enough, but there are liars and crazy people in this world.
Yes, there used to be doubt about accusations against public figures. Thing is, given how sex offenders are pilloried, the more someone risks by committing a crime, the less people used to believe them. Now people know that risk is what motivates some criminals, perception has changed.

Phone post. New phone, am at war with my autocorrect

This is false. It was on his calendar.

First off, forensic evidence is nowhere near a slam dunk. It’s actually not uncommon for there to be none even soon after the situation.

But I’d say the bigger problem is that you are putting the onus on a trauma victim, someone who may even have PTSD–what we used to call shell shock–and asking them to enter an adversarial system where they will be attacked by the defense. And society will still pillory them, because it always happens. There is a good portion of society that will assume she is guilty until proven innocent. We see it in every case.

So they have to go through all that, and the evidence may not even be enough. If one of those "never believe her"s is on the jury, you get a mistrial.

People don’t make up that it’s hard to get a conviction. The people who do try still find it hard.

This doesn’t solve the problem. What I actually think would save us is an overhaul of the court system to a truth-based system, where both sides are incentivized to find the truth.

Well, that and maybe always on personal body cams that can detect if anyone but their owner touches them. They would remain private and encrypted and tamperproof ,and only the owner could release it in case of a crime. Not big brother, but just you filming yourself.

But that’s a pipe dream, and would require further desires to always film life that haven’t happened yet.

A date which Ford ruled out.
Unsurprisingly, as it contradicted a lot of her story.

Many of the posts in this thread are so confused and mistaken that I don’t know where to start.

First of all: 35 years ago, a tale of “attempted rape” involving teenagers with the victim never even disrobed would have been laughed at. And, whether she knew her story would be taken seriously or not, the 15 year-old victim would be too shocked and mortified to consider reporting to police. This much is all so obvious that some thread comments are bizarre non sequiturs.

Intelligent people should form a judgement based on all the facts and opinions presented, and their knowledge of human culture, common sense, as well as guesses about motives. One reviews all the corroborations, both of the incident in question, and related incidents reported by other victims. When I do that, I conclude that the chance that Ford’s story is essentially correct is about 98% or 99%. (If on a jury, that 1 or 2% window might constitute “reasonable doubt.”) Others may derive estimates much less than 98% — but that just tells me that others either have poor judgement, or are (consciously or subconsciously) modifying their opinion to conform with a partisan bent.

HTH.

Great. I am sure you will now share your experiences in investigating, prosecution and defending sex crimes cases which gives such insight… septimus.

If Kavanaugh was innocent then why did the Republicans insist that the FBI could only pursue a very limited investigation? That screams “He’s guilty and we need to keep anyone from finding the real evidence.” My understanding is that the FBI didn’t even re-interview Ford and that there were indeed other witnesses they failed to interview do to the artificial time frame for further investigation imposed by the Republicans and Trump.