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

By “all the corroborations”, do you mean the four other people Ford alleged were at the party? Kavanaugh certainly didn’t corroborate her allegation. Mark Judge did not corroborate her allegations. PJ Smith certainly did not. Ms. Keyser not only did not corroborate the allegation - she didn’t even corroborate that she was ever at a party with Kavanaugh.

If by “related incidents” you mean the allegations by Swetnick and Rodriguez, neither of those allegations were corroborated.



Or perhaps they actually understand the meaning of “corroboration”.


Lot of arguing against things I didn’t say in the guise of addressing me.

So, not on phone, let me state my points again with less brevity.

The OP posited the question: What does it take for someone like Blasey Ford to prove her case? They elaborated that being 35 years ago, how do you get away from he said/she said.

I responded that that is why reporting at the time is crucial; it is effectively (there are caveats) the only way to get actual forensic evidence. I nowhere said it was a slam dunk; that does not mean it is not the method by which more than someone’s word can be provided.

There’s a window on evidence collection. If I didn’t buy Nike in the late 60s at a buck a share, I can’t get that price now. Window of opportunity.

No, it’s not a guaranteed slam dunk- but now it’s more than just one word against another directly. That is pertinent to the OP’s question.

I further commented that the culture of “women aren’t believed anyway” does not seem evidential- I hear that women didn’t go forward because they knew they wouldn’t be believed, and I see citations that the fact they aren’t believed years later, when no evidence can exist, as proof that they wouldn’t have been believed at the time. This disregards the fact that someone intending to deceive could deliberately wait until no evidence is available.

Note: I stated this initially, this is not to blame the victim. Only the victim has the right to file a report, and only the victim can submit to evidence collection. Yes, PTSD, yes it’s difficult- that’s why it’s their right- but grief counselors are doing a disservice when they don’t advise someone that not stepping forward at the time greatly decreases the likelihood of getting justice. Action is on them, this is not to blame, but only they can do it, and the bald states: Right after event there is evidence, decades later there is not- are in no way affected by the victim’s emotional state. That’s not blaming, those are the immutable facts of the world, much like the sun rising in the east or water being wet.

You are inverting the justice system, because a rape victim isn’t the one on trial. Part of any crime prosecution is determining that the crime did take place. The rape victim isn’t being placed on trial when they are being cross examined. The accused is entitled, under western justice, to a defense and the presumption of innocence. Rape is not an exception to this, and not automatically believing a self-proclaimed victim is not in line with the entire structure of the justice system. That’s a justice system issue, not a sexual assault issue.

If we lived in a world where there were no mentally unsound individuals, a world where there were no deliberately deceptive people, and a world where people understood the consequences of their actions (how deleterious a false accusation is), then none of this would be an issue. There’s also the further issue of people don’t have the same boundaries, either intergenerationally or individually.

TL;DR: You aren’t responding to what I said, but what you think I said. What you heard: To guarantee a conviction, they have to step forward, and you rightly argued that is incorrect. What I was saying was: If they don’t come forward, they are essentially guaranteeing a he said/she said situation; their window to change that is in the aftermath and not years later. If they want to get a conviction, they would probably need to come forward.

How common would it be for one of the non-involved people to remember these kinds of events? I certainly would not remember every time I went to someone’s house and every person that was there 30 years afterwards. Even thinking back at the parties I went to, I can only tell you a handful of people who were there and it’s because I was close friends with them. Some random person at the party who I hardly knew has totally been forgotten.

On the flip side, recently a friend from HS was recounting a time he went to a concert with a couple other friends. I told him I also went with them but he didn’t remember. Even though the concert was 4 hours away and we all drove in the same car, he didn’t remember that I went with them. One reason I remember that trip is because a rodent had gotten trapped in the engine and the smell was horrible. So even in this case when my friend should have remembered I was there, he didn’t. I would imagine it would be even easier to forget that some random person was also there.

There is a fresh complaint doctrine which is an exception to hearsay for sexual assaults. The testimony of the fresh complaint witness can not be offered as proof of the accusation but can be used to negate the idea that the accusation was fabricated.

I did not listen to every moment of testimony. The only people she told that I could find online said they were told decades later. The accuser must tell the person about the accusation voluntarily and contemporaneously to the event for it to be considered a fresh complaint witness. Decades later isn’t a fresh complaint nor is years or probably months.

My state allows use of the fresh complaint doctrine. I believe not all jurisdiction do. If not then it’s all hearsay.

sorry. wrong thread

After 35 years the only real hope is a willing confession by the accused, or a ‘consensual intercept’ as mentioned by Loach upthread.

Barring that, if the therapist’s notes had included Kavenaugh’s name, that would have been enough of a smoking gun to lose my support. But once the timeline extended to the point where almost everyone involved has a political agenda, everyone’s testimony is suspect and the default position is innocent until proven guilty.

That last bit is what drives me crazy about this whole thing.

In a criminal trial? Absolutely. Innocent until proven guilty.

In a job interview? Feel free to not give the promotion to the guy with the baggage, since he may reflect poorly on your organization.

Too many people acted as though the hearings were a criminal trial. They were not. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply.

It would be more accurate to say that there is no legal requirement to apply “innocent until proven guilty”.

It may still make a great deal of sense to apply this, rather than to accept an uncorroborated 3-decade-old allegation of a vaguely remembered incident.

Among other obvious drawbacks, there’d be the precedent that all you need to scuttle a nominee is a faintly plausible, evidence-free allegation.

The aether ate my last post.

Summary version: Real financial, professional, and public harm would be done to Judge Kavanaugh if this had derailed his nomination. It would be a tacit endorsement of the claim. Hence the abbreviated FBI investigation.

Arguing otherwise is disingenuous. People lie, people make mistakes, people are malicious or working from ulterior motives.

You think anyone would let him near their teen daughters (coaching basketball) again? You think he’ll ever be free of this anyway, anymore than Clarence Thomas?

As it stands, he will never be Chief Justice.

And note that in the 30 plus years subsequent, there is no similar pattern of behavior- in point of fact, he’s spent those years as a documentable model citizen. This erodes the credibility of the alleged assault. Add to that the super-convenient political timing, and many don’t find the claim credible. Some do, that’s your right as an individual. The very public nature of the accusation/“job interview” invalidates any claim that “it’s just a job interview.” Conceding that the possibility of baggage, regardless of its truth, would cost someone their future in your worldview concedes how damaging false accusations can be.

This is why Kavanaugh said at the outset he welcomed an investigation, and could prove it didn’t happen. Study criminal psychology. Not the reaction of a guilty man.

We aren’t a nation of communities. If an African American in D.C., on the far side of the continent, shoots my cousin, we’re not going to imprison a random African American here in PDX because the guilt or crime of one is the guilt or crime of all. That’s why all this “patriarchy” talk is garbage when it comes to an individual’s guilt or innocence. We’re not borg-implanted into identity groups. We’re a nation of damned individuals and it’s about individual guilt and innocence.

Sidebar: Really irritating to me. Kavanaugh was part of Ken Starr’s legal team when he was a young hotshot. Identifying that as the only time he might have made enemies who would be “out to get him” now is not totally unreasonable. Or do most of those who laugh at how crazy his saying it may have been “Clintonistas” going after him not know that that was his initial foray into politics?

OP: How is someone like Christine Ford supposed to prove her case?
Is it fair to ask the other side of this question? How is Kavanaugh supposed to prove his innocence?
Proving something did not happen is usually much more difficult than proving something did.
I am sure if someone accused anyone of us today of a crime 30 years ago, we would have no way to prove it did not happen, especially if there is missing details regarding time/place/people.

So you would fire someone on the word of a trusted female employee that someone comped his friend a free meal but you wouldn’t fire them over an allegation that they groped her in the freezer? Why would you do that?

OK time for a poll. Let’s see how many people here would fire someone over the4se other offenses over an allegation of sexual misconduct.

I mean just from a liability standpoint, my exposure is much higher with sexual misconduct than a free meal.

Bullshit, they would have stopped grandstanding as soon Democrats failed to take the senate. I don’t think Democrats are ready to stall for 2 more years. This was hurting them politically. Its probably why the Democrats underperformed (or the Republicans overperformed). :stuck_out_tongue:

Once again, bullshit. He obviously engaged in underage drinking. He broke the law, we should take away his kids and give them to ICE.

Roman gladiator?

They don’t care about his adherence to the constitution. They care about his adherence to Roe v. Wade. Seriously, if he had a long pro-choice history but otherwise strict constructionism, he would not have met such resistance.

*Not *by repeatedly telling the panel interviewing you for a senior position how much you love beer, then starting into screaming and crying.

The issue was always his activist support for banning abortion (and otherwise supporting the powerful) vs. his ability to follow the law, the Constitution, and precedent.

98-99%? Really? With NO corroborating evidence other than the alleged victim’s testimony?

It does when you are the minority party trying to derail a nomination before an election.

How about when you’re the narrow-majority party trying to railroad it through before an election?

'Cause that’s what actually happened.

No. Both sides do not do it. If this had been a Democratic nominee, at a bare minimum, the nomination would have been withdrawn, and the Democratic president would have found someone clean to nominate instead. And if the hypothetical D nominee had carried on at the hearing the way Kavanaugh did, bragging about his poor character and ranting and raving about conspiracies, there would have been strong pressure on him to resign his existing judgeship, as well. This is not hypothetical: We have real-world examples of how the current Democratic party deals with sexual misconduct. Look at what happened with Al Franken, or Anthony Weiner.

I really regret mentioning Christine Ford in my OP. I should have just asked how a (generic, anyone) victim could have proven something from 30 years ago. Instead the thread is 90% derailed.

No, it would have played out as filmore described. Change the parties, change the majority in the Senate, and everyone, Democrat or Republican, would have flipped-flopped automatically. I wish the Republicans were better than the Democrats on this, but they are not. You wish the Democrats were better than the Republicans on this, but they are not…

There would have been a dozen threads praising him for his courage in standing up to bullying, all announcing how he had pwned the GOP.

In your hypothetical, unsubstantiated allegations are made. The allegations against Franken and Weiner were corroborated. The allegations against Kavanaugh were not.


I agree that the D’s would have pulled Kavanaugh before the hearings came about. While they also have political motivations, they also have a bit more integrity and will sometimes to do the right thing even to their own detriment. But it seems the case that the R’s response is almost totally driven by what gets them the win rather than what is morally right. The R’s disbelief of Ford is based almost entirely on the fact that she was accusing an R rather than any faults in her story.