Yes. So let’s change it, then.
Smart escapes from her captor, and by the time he’s caught, there is no evidence with which to convict him. She knows he did it, but there’s no conviction to point to.
Now?
Why did you make me read that? DNFTT.
Elizabeth Smart is the victim of the crime.
Justice Thomas’ wife is not.
You’ll have have to retool the analogy for quite a while to make it fit. I hope you have your own lathe.
But in any case, doesn’t it just come down to how one defines “tone deaf”? Skip the analogies, let’s start a round of battling dictionary cites! Woohoo!
Conviction or not. Elizabeth Smart is in a position to know for a fact what the truth is. Virginia Thomas is not.
I can’t read one of those posts.
But from the other, it appears someone claimed that Angela Wright said she was sexually harrassed by Thomas.
But from the transcript of Wright’s testimony:
(pg 482, HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON THE NOMINATION OF CLARENCE THOMAS TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, J-102-40)
OK.
So let’s say Smart’s mother makes the call.
Tone deaf?
That testimony doesn’t really help you as much as you think it does. The behavior described is very similar to what Hill described. Whether it was “harassment” just comes down to the subjective feelings of those two individuals, not really the behavior itself. It corroborates Hill, it doesn’t refute her.
Smart’s mother also knows for a fact what the truth is . Mrs. Thomas still does not.
I will say this – if anyone from the Smart family were to think they had any possibility of getting an apology from this person they know to be a stone sociopath and an unapologetic predator, then they would indeed be tone deaf.
Thomas’s Teapublican cell leader wife brings this back in a blatant bid to throw some chum to the “angry” teabaggers. Yeah, get 'em riled for the election.
Actually, she doesn’t. Elizabeth Smart’s mother has no more idea than does Virginia Thomas as to the facts.
Tone-deaf is too mild.
Bricker, I’m finding myself increasingly bewildered as to your point.
if ((caller == Elizabeth’s mom) && (conviction))
tone_deaf = false;
if ((caller == Elizabeth’s mom) && (!conviction))
tone_deaf = true;
if (caller == Elizabeth)
tone_deaf = false;
if (caller == Virginia)
tone_deaf = true;
I’m not sure this situation lends itself to boolean analysis. Bayesian, maybe.
This is simply not true. There is a great deal of corroborating physical evidence in the Smart case. We all know for a fact that the child was kidnapped, held prisoner and raped. Not a single one of those things is in question, and none of it relies on Elizabeth’s mere word. What conceivable alternative theory of the Smart case could make her a liar who made it all up?
Elizabeth Smart’s mother is not the victim anymore than Justice Thomas’ wife is.
I have no interest in turning yet another thread into The Diogenes Show, and will not assist in such.
His accomplice was convicted. Mitchell himself was able to avoid prosecution for a long time by faking psychitric symptoms, but has now been declared competent to stand trial, and his trial is still pending.
In any case, we do have a conviction of his accomplice on the same facts.
Irrelevant. None of the allegations are rationally disputable and, in point of fact, have been proven in a court of law. These two cases are not analogous.
Incidentally, Elizabeth Smart’s mother was TOO a victim. She had her child kidnapped, held prisoner and raped for six months. Nothing at all happened to Mrs. Thomas except that her husband got accused of something which ultimately did him no harm.
Uh-oh, now you’ve done it. Now we’re in for four pages on the legal definition of “victim”.
Not on my part.
Except of course, that Richard Ricci, hounded to death, was a victim. Was his wife or mother also a victim?