Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

Unless there's specific evidence against a claim I tend to consider it more plausible than not. Most women incur a lot of penalties for voicing rape, even in situations were it indisputably happened. This case is no different, she's gotten death threats and is under surveilance at the moment.



All the problems you're talking about, details shifting, etc... are universal hallmarks of human memory. Its why the usefulness of human witnesses is often being discussed as a big problem. The only reason we use them is because the alternative, a comprehensive surveilance society, is exponentially worse.



You'll be in good company I imagine. That's what most people think about any woman who testifies that she's been raped.

First of all, I never said that every woman who claims rape is lying, so get that crap out of here.

Secondly, we DO have specific evidence against this claim being true which is the therapist's notes which significantly differ from Ford's claims, and four named witnesses who all deny the incident. Nevermind that this expectation turns justice on its head; it is the accuser's burden to prove the claims and not the accused's burden to disprove them.

Finally, your theory of faulty human memory doesn't fly. She claims this incident had a lifelong impact on her ability to form relationships, yet she can remember hardly anything about it.

Is it possible she was assaulted at a party in high school? Sure. Her school had a reputation for debauchery, so it's likely she attended a party where something like that could have happened. Is it plausible that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator? Based on everything we know, including the denials of witnesses, almost certainly not. By all accounts, Kavanaugh is innocent.

[Leonhard]

First of all, I never said that every woman who claims rape is lying, so get that crap out of here.

I was careful to word it the way I did, so there's no crab to get out of here. I won't even retract or edit it.

You're reading something into what I said. I said most people disbelieve women who testify that they've been raped. And you believe she's lying.

So you'd be in good company. Not that many people would disagree with you.

Nevermind that this expectation turns justice on its head; it is the accuser's burden to prove the claims and not the accused's burden to disprove them.

I don't believe *that she did it*. I'm not saying *Kavanaugh is guilty*. All I'm saying is that her accusation is more likely to be true than false.

Secondly, we DO have specific evidence against this claim being true which is the therapist's notes which significantly differ from Ford's claims,

The account of the Ressurection differs significantly between Luke, Matthew and John. Witness testimonies in general differ significanly from eachother, and they change over time as well. That's just the nature of testimonies. You're right that these are problems, but they're universal problems.

As for the differences, it boils down to whether you believe its significant that one reports 4 boys and the other 2. Whether it was 4 boys in the bed room, or 4 boys at the party and of 2 of them in the bedoom. I think that's a reasonable difference.

Though be my guest if you wanna throw out 99% of all witness testimonies from here on, which is something I wonder if we'll have to do. The fallibility of human memory is the biggest reason I think there's reasonable doubt.

Finally, your theory of faulty human memory doesn't fly. She claims this incident had a lifelong impact on her ability to form relationships, yet she can remember hardly anything about it.

You believe trauma causes photographic memory? At any rate she does remember it was Kavanaugh.

Is it possible she was assaulted at a party in high school? Sure. Her school had a reputation for debauchery, so it's likely she attended a party where something like that could have happened. Is it plausible that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator? Based on everything we know, including the denials of witnesses, almost certainly not. By all accounts, Kavanaugh is innocent.

I think that's a better claim on your part, and I agree that's a possibility. I've thought about it myself. Yet I still believe its likely Kavanaugh. Though again, reasonable doubt remains.

[Cow Poke]

Is there anything more I should do? Both in that post and in another I called it attempted murder, with reference to your clarification.

We've gone from calling it rape, to attempted rape, and now to attempted MURDER?????

[Leonhard]

We've gone from calling it rape, to attempted rape, and now to attempted MURDER?????

Uh, yeah its not supposed to read murder, but should be 'rape'.

Groan. And I tend to re-edit my posts too and I didn't catch this.

[Mountain Man]

IAll I'm saying is that her accusation is more likely to be true than false.

Based on what? Certainly not on the evidence, all of which contradicts Ford's claims.

The account of the Ressurection differs significantly between Luke, Matthew and John. Witness testimonies in general differ significanly from eachother, and they change over time as well. That's just the nature of testimonies. You're right that these are problems, but they're universal problems.

You can get that crap out of here, too. There's a big difference between witnesses disagreeing on minor details but being in general agreement that an event happened, and a single claimant who can't tell a consistent story that is directly contradicted by other people she has named as witnesses, most notably her lifelong friend who presumably has no reason to lie!

And, yes, in general, trauma has been known to create extraordinarily vivid memories, so the lack of any specific details on her part, including not even remembering her assailant's name until recently (she never gave any names to her therapist in 2012), is highly suspicious.

All things considered, it is almost certain that Ford's accusation is false, and that Kavanaugh is innocent.

[oxmixmudd]

Er, what? No. My contention is that, if this was so traumatic, it should've triggered something when he first came to national attention. It didn't.

It sounds like it did trigger something. She sought help in 2012. But it wasn't worth the public attention until the stakes were high enough, in this case a SC nomination.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Isn't that a convenient recollection. Except that according to the hard evidence -- in this case, the therapist's notes -- Ford implied that she was assaulted by four guys and didn't give any names. Yet we're supposed to believe she had this very specific concern despite there being nothing in 2012 to suggest that Kavanaugh would be a contender for justice of the SC.

Like I said, Ford's story has a distinct odor of "making it up as she goes".

I don't think so. There are many possibilities here, he was too drunk to remember, she was really drunk, and so on. But those that know about how this sort of thing goes are of the opinion there is nothing about the facts as we know them so far that is inconsistent with the memory of a person who experienced such an event. Having to deal with comments like are being made on this page being one of the major reasons these kinds of events often go unreported. It really is a difficult situation. (1) A man, accused but innocent, has little defense (e.g Joseph). OTOH (2) a woman abused must face huge amounts of hostility from men (and women) because of the possibility of (1).

Evil men take advantage of (2)

Evil women take advantage of (1)

I think we should all be very careful the accusations we make lest the evil people continue their reign of abuse on the innocent and we continue the role as their enabling agents.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Uh, yeah its not supposed to read murder, but should be 'rape'.

Groan. And I tend to re-edit my posts too and I didn't catch this.

I think we've all made that mistake. I make it almost every time I try to use my phone instead of my computer to create a post.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I still ask, what's wrong with believing that the rape probably took place, but also at the same time being honest about the impossibility of convicting Kavanaugh?

Nothing (excepting what was described was assault, not rape) - it's just the reality of the situation.

[Mountain Man]

...there is nothing about the facts as we know them so far that

is inconsistent with the memory of a person who experienced such an event.

WHAT facts? Everything has been denied by people that Ford herself has named, including her lifelong friend who presumably has no reason to lie and has no memory of the party or of ever seeing Ford and Kavanaugh together. Are you suggesting that EVERYBODY at this supposed party was too drunk to remember anything? Not likely.

And sorry, but I don't buy the "Sexual assault causes women to forget key details or have vivid memories of things that didn't happen" canard. That's all based on the "repressed memory" BS that has been debunked by numerous researchers.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...dhood-memories
https://harvardmagazine.com/2008/01/...ed-memory.html

There is nothing about the facts as we know them so far that would suggest that Ford is telling the truth or that Kavanaugh is guilty.

[Leonhard]

Based on what? Certainly not on the evidence, all of which contradicts Ford's claims.

My intuitive reasoning is just fact that she had little to gain from it, a lot to lose, and she's currently being mistreated for her testimony, which is what usually happens. On that grounds I believe she's not lying. The question then is whether her testimony is more likely to be correct than not. Its most plausible, and you suggest the possibility yourself, that a frat boy got grabby with her.

For something a little more involved it would go like this.

Its a simple matter of bayesian inference. 28% of women are raped, 82% aren't (CDC and FBI), the likelihood of someone accusing another person of rape if that person hasn't been raped is very low (less than 1 in a 1000), only around 1 in 7 women report a rape if its happened. This gives us a 95+% probability that if a woman reports she has been raped, then she has been raped.

The number is much higher if we're talking about attempted rape.

The question then for me is what is the probability that it was Kavanaugh if she claims it was him. The probability that he is guilty will then be the product of that probability, and the probability that someone attempted to rape her if she claimed someone did.

Since the first number is close to true, the other just has to be above 50% in order for it to be more likely to be true than not.

And here is the largest gap. Because human memory is really fallible. People misremember all sorts of things all the time. There's a famous case studying a woman who saw JFK getting shot, and how her testimony of that event changed each time she was interviewed over the years, gaining more and more details. If someone faults her for misremembering, I think that's fair. But I consider it 80% likely that she's remembering correctly.

I don't believe the odd discrepancies amount to any good case against her. That just looks like conservatives on an anomaly hunt to descredit her. The witness testimony is a lot stronger in my opinion. And its honestly not something I've factored into my considerations yet.

You can get that crap out of here, too. There's a big difference between witnesses disagreeing on minor details but being in general agreement that an event happened, and a single claimant who can't tell a consistent story that is directly contradicted by other people she has named as witnesses, most notably her lifelong friend who presumably has no reason to lie!

There's no crap to get out of here. I deliberately chose the example because of the discrepancy in the number of women at the tomb of Jesus. Apologists have gone to various lengths to reconsile that, with the accepted answer just being ordinary human inaccuracy in describing things. I don't see why we should give them special leeway, citing that as a defense, and not give her the same.

You're right that she's a lone witness. Again, like I've pointed out multiple times. I don't think there's a case here. Even if its likely that Kavanaugh did it, it is also not implausible that he didn't do it.

If you know to a 75% probability that a coworker is embezzling funds, do you turn him in? I personally don't think a 3 out of 4 chance is strong enough even to discipline someone. However I think its fair game as a testimony.

And, yes, in general, trauma has been known to create extraordinarily vivid memories, so the lack of any specific details on her part, including not even remembering her assailant's name until recently (she never gave any names to her therapist in 2012), is highly suspicious.

I do know that people with post traumatic stress can sometimes report vivid flashbacks. Especially war victims. Yet you'd have to show statistics that this phenomenon is widespread with rape victims, much less attempted rape victims.

All things considered, it is almost certain that Ford's accusation is false, and that Kavanaugh is innocent.

I respect your opinion and humbly disagree.

[rogue06]

The only thing that's suspicious to me is the whole thing with a hearing. That does look like someone is trying to capitalize on this. But beyond that anyone is allowed to testify as to their own experience of things.

Practically everybody was almost begging her to come and testify. She was the one who was hesitating and at long last has finally agreed.

[Leonhard]

Practically everybody was almost begging her to come and testify. She was the one who was hesitating and at long last has finally agreed.

Which is another reason I believe she's being honest. The big question is, given the fallibility of human memory, how trustworthy it is.

And in the end, there's just not evidence here to convict anyone which I've stressed in every single post I've made in this thread.

[rogue06]

My intuitive reasoning is just fact that she had little to gain from it, a lot to lose, and she's currently being mistreated for her testimony, which is what usually happens. On that grounds I believe she's not lying.

I've come to believe that she isn't lying and honestly believes what she is saying. I also think that she is suffering from a false memory as can be seen by having given contradictory accounts on nearly every part of the alleged incident. When she first sought treatment in 2012 and her psychiatrist attempted to extract "repressed memories" (which commonly results in constructing false memories and why that technique is for the most part held in disrepute) her account was very different (it was four attackers and she never mentioned Kavanaugh) then the story began to evolve and go through different versions (it became a single attacker and finally two for instance), again typical of a false memory. The fact that she can't remember any of the pertinent details such as

• when it happened -- she thinks it was at some point during the summer of 1982, but apparently was originally not quite sure of even the year.
• where it happened -- she thinks it might have happened somewhere in Montgomery County
• how she got there -- or even if she went with someone.
• if her alleged attackers followed her upstairs or were already upstairs and ambushed her.
• how many people were involved in the alleged attack -- as noted it has changed from four to one to two.
• how she got home -- again if she was with anyone.

Are also red flags for a false memory

Then there is the fact that she never told anyone about being attacked -- not the authorities, not a school counselor or teacher she liked and trusted, not any classmates, not a bff, not a sibling or other close relative -- until after she "discovered" she had been attacked decades later^[1]. And of course those that, as time goes on, she "remembers" being there, including a close friend, are saying that it didn't happen.








1. apparently she went in to find out why she was having various issues.

[Mountain Man]

My intuitive reasoning is just fact that she had little to gain from it...

Nope, not good enough. Just because an accusation might be personally costly to the one making it doesn't automatically grant their accusation credibility.

ts a simple matter of bayesian inference. 28% of women are raped, 82% aren't (CDC and FBI), the likelihood of someone accusing another person of rape if that person hasn't been raped is very low (less than 1 in a 1000), only around 1 in 7 women report a rape if its happened. This gives us a 95+% probability that if a woman reports she has been raped, then she has been raped.

The number is much higher if we're talking about attempted rape.

The question then for me is what is the probability that it was Kavanaugh if she claims it was him. The probability that he is guilty will then be the product of that probability, and the probability that someone attempted to rape her if she claimed someone did.

Since the first number is close to true, the other just has to be above 50% in order for it to be more likely to be true than not.

Bull crap... justice is not determined by mathematical probability, it is determined on a case by case basis by looking at the evidence for each specific case, and in this case, Ford has given us no reason whatsoever to believe her claims and every reason to disbelieve them based on her sketchy memory, the inconsistency in her narrative over time, the lack of any corroborating details, and that each person she has so far named has emphatically denied her accusations.

And, no, your fallible memory hypothesis doesn't account for any of this. If it was a case of Ford saying that two guys attacked her, and her friend saying that only one guy attacked, and another person saying that he remembers seeing Ford and Kavanaugh together at the party but doesn't recall them ever going upstairs then you could very reasonably make the case that each person is remembering a slight variation of the same incident. But that's not what we have here. We have a single claimant making a specious accusation that is disputed by four people that she herself has named. That being the case, what's the probability that Ford is falsely accusing Kavanaugh? I think "pretty darn high" is the correct answer.