|
Post by markesq on Sept 21, 2018 9:14:48 GMT -5
I had a jury trial where identity was the central issue, and I used a boffin who is an expert in memory. He'd never testified for the prosecution before, which was kinda funny to him but, as Cass has pointed out, he emphasized that when it comes to identifying someone, there is a HUGE difference between being able to ID a stranger (say from a line up) and being able to identify someone you already know. He described is as the difference between remembering and recognizing.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 21, 2018 10:57:25 GMT -5
I think that yes, any nominee who has someone come forward and accuse him or her of serious misconduct years and years ago is going to have to address those claims, and if they can't satisfy Congress that it's a fabrication, they don't get confirmed. Yes, I expect Supreme Court nominees to be squeaky clean going back all the way to their teenage years. If you were not squeaky clean, you have many avenues to live a productive and rewarding life, just not as a Supreme Court Justice. You're setting a very high and probably an unrealistic standard of conduct for a potential Supreme Court nominee. There's a big difference between youthful transgressions and sexual assault. While drinking beer before he was legal age might earn Brent Kavanaugh a wagging finger of rebuke, a sexual assault should be an automatic disqualifier. Yet Ronald Reagan's second nominee to the Court after Robert Bork was voted down was a guy named Douglas Ginsburg (no relation to the Notorious RBG) and his nomination went up in a puff of marijuana smoke. Ginsburg not only admitted he inhaled, he developed such a fondness for the hippie lettuce he went so far as when he was a professor to spark up with the students. On Reagan's third try to fill the seat, he finally got it right and picked some guy named Anthony Kennedy. Being a bad boy ( and a member of the KKK!) didn't keep Hugo Black from ascending to the highest court in the land. Certainly there are many Supreme Court nominees who have done some sketchy stuff in their misspent youth, but each case has to be weighed on its own. These are lifetime positions and it's tough to remove a Supreme Court justice. This process is in place to elevate worthy judges, not choose a new pope. So let's say he testifies under oath. His testimony is solid, denies the charge, but because there's no specific date or time, can't really give an alibi. Ford doesn't testify. He can't disprove it. He can only tell you that he's 100% innocent. Then what? He gets voted out of committee and his nomination is sent to the Senate floor where a vote is scheduled and if a majority of senators say "Yea" instead of "Nay", Kavanaugh will take his place on the bench before the first Monday in October. Okay. Let's say she does testify. She remembers he did this. She doesn't remember when it was, where it was. There is no way to verify it one way or the other. He denies, but can't disprove it. Then what? See above. Same answer.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Sept 21, 2018 12:06:50 GMT -5
You're setting a very high and probably an unrealistic standard of conduct for a potential Supreme Court nominee. There's a big difference between youthful transgressions and sexual assault. While drinking beer before he was legal age might earn Brent Kavanaugh a wagging finger of rebuke, a sexual assault should be an automatic disqualifier. By "squeaky clean" I mean "avoided even the appearance of sketchiness." Of course the standards of what constitutes sketchiness have changed. Today, yeah, neither underage drinking nor smoking pot would probably disqualify a Supreme Court nominee. OTOH, there is no chance someone who'd once been a member of the KKK would even be considered. And at one time, "Might have partied hard and gotten a little rough with girls" probably wouldn't have been a big deal, but now, it is.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 21, 2018 14:16:47 GMT -5
And at one time, "Might have partied hard and gotten a little rough with girls" probably wouldn't have been a big deal, but now, it is.And we're better off with it now being a big deal. Men have no excuses left. If they haven't got it they have no right to make vulgar comments, touch a woman's body where their hands have no business being, pulling out their pathetic little pee-pees, and treating women like they only exist for the pleasure of men, they will never get it. The phrase "toxic masculinity" annoys me the same way "woke" does, but Kavanaugh and Trump are joined at the hip and their ideas about what a man is and what he can do is absolutely positively poisonous. Case in point: link"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!"
"The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago?" What. An. Asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 21, 2018 19:20:53 GMT -5
And at one time, "Might have partied hard and gotten a little rough with girls" probably wouldn't have been a big deal, but now, it is.And we're better off with it now being a big deal. Men have no excuses left. If they haven't got it they have no right to make vulgar comments, touch a woman's body where their hands have no business being, pulling out their pathetic little pee-pees, and treating women like they only exist for the pleasure of men, they will never get it. The phrase "toxic masculinity" annoys me the same way "woke" does, but Kavanaugh and Trump are joined at the hip and their ideas about what a man is and what he can do is absolutely positively poisonous. Case in point: link"I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!"
"The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn't someone call the FBI 36 years ago?" What. An. Asshole. With due respect, calling Trump an asshole based on that tweet in a great insult.
To assholes everywhere.
Regardless of how one feels about this mess, there are a plethora of legitimate reasons why victims of sexual assault, both men and women, don't go to the police.
Fear of not being believed Fear of being blamed Or slut shamed Or called a sissy or gay for male victims or getting in trouble because they weren't the white virginal saint at the time of the assault or because they actually don't want the perpetrator to get sent to jail because they'll feel guilty or because they don't want to deal with endless court hearings or because they can't face what happened to them and I'm sure a shit ton more than that.
Not to mention, had Dr. Ford gone to authorities when she was 15 years old, she wouldn't have gone to the fucking FBI.
And by the way, not all parents are loving. Some are assholes.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 21, 2018 19:47:53 GMT -5
And as you know, I generally agree with that. But she didn't "see" something. She was attacked by someone she actually knew at a very small party. To be clear, I wasn't posting that pic to make any kind of an argument for or against. I just like the quote and it was at least tangentially relevant to the topic. However... To Cass' point: www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/health/memory-sexual-assault-ptsd/index.htmlNot only are women who've experienced a sexual assault likely to remember their assaults, they tend to have memories that are more vivid than women who've experienced other sorts of traumas, such as car accidents, a new study shows. "They were more likely to see the trauma in their mind, to see the contextual layout, and to consider it a significant part of their life story," said Tracey Shors, a professor of neuroscience at Rutgers University, who co-authored the study published this month in Frontiers in Psychiatry. I read the study and I'm not all that convinced yet, from a memory science standpoint. They didn't really show anything other than what's commonly found in PTSD patients (soldiers, especially). However, their claims as to the accuracy of traumatic memories in women flies in the face of a mountain of evidence against their results (also, the Frontiers journals will publish just about anything). Not sure why they're trying to insinuate that women's trauma is somehow unique in regards to the extent to which it affects the long-term potentiation of PTSD-related memories and other symptoms. The underlying memory mechanisms in women's brains are no different than men's or children's. That's not at all meant to imply that women who are assaulted don't remember key details of their attack nor meant to imply that some of them don't develop PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms afterwards. I'm also not making any claims as to Ford's accusations other than to say that, thus far, I believe her. I've mostly stayed out of the thread because I think Kavanaugh is a dirt bag, that Ford is telling the truth to the best of her knowledge, and because...sadly...I'm still not convinced any of it will matter in the end because I have little faith that Republicans in Congress aren't miserable pieces of shit that will get their way on this confirmation no matter what. I'm only commenting on the specific scientific claims made in that CNN article (and the study it reports on). There are a lot of past studies that don't really support the claims made in that one, and it's just one study against a mountain of other evidence. Until it's replicated, I'll stick with what the prevailing evidence says. For example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337233/
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 21, 2018 20:30:38 GMT -5
I'll also note, in terms of trauma memory and all, that often times you'll also hear that the trauma of rape is also a reason why the memory is unreliable and inconsistencies should be considered proof of the trauma. At least that's what the colleges who have been forced to reveal their training say.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 22, 2018 22:04:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 7:58:41 GMT -5
OF COURSE THEY HAVE NO MEMORY OF A RANDOM PARTY 35 YEARS AGO AT WHICH NOTHING REMARKABLE HAPPENED TO THEM. THIS IS NOT A STORY.
FORD, KAVANAUGH, AND JUDGE NEED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. THE OTHERS HAVE ZERO IMPACT.
THIS HAS BEEN YOUR "I'M SO FUCKING TIRED OF HEARING PEOPLE POINT TO 'GEE, RANDOM PERSON DOESN'T, OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD, REMEMBER RANDOM PARTY AT WHICH THEY WERE NOT ASSAULTED AND DID NOT SEEAN ASSAULT AND BY THE WAY NO ONE SAID THEY DID" SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT.
You know what actually might be relevant? Whelan, the asshole who put forth the "gee, this guy in the yearbook looks like Kavanaugh..." theory was checking Ford out on LinkedIn and Google before Ford's name was publically released as the accuser.
Kavanaugh's team sure as hell acts like he's guilty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 8:32:01 GMT -5
I actually have a story akin to this.
Back in college, a very good friend of mine and I attended an off-campus party. We attended a LOT of parties. I really don't remember it in particular because it was like a thousand others.
I apparently left the party early. My friend, who had a crush on one of the guys in the house, stayed and eventually got blackout drunk. She stayed the night. She woke to learn she'd lost her virginity to the guy she was crushing on. She cried. He felt bad (or said he did) - he said she was conscious and seemed into it. She can't say whether that's true-- she remembers nothing.
She didn't press charges. She didn't tell anyone for a long time. By the time she told me, I couldn't have said which of a zillion parties this was, or verified for sure that I had been at this particular one.
But I absolutely believe her because she has good reason to remember that party that I do not have.
If now, reporters asked if I remember that party, I would have to say no. If you ask whether I believe my friend, I'd say "yes, absolutely."
ETA:
The point is, the only thing I'm remotely useful for, witness-wise, is to what kind of people my friend and the guy were. That's it.
My friend wouldn't lie about such a thing, IMO, and while I liked the guy well enough at the time, I definitely think he had a "so what if she's semi-conscious, she's been flirting with me all night and totally wants me" attitude, as did some of his buddies.
But as to the party, pfft. All I can say is "I believe my friend byt don't recall the party."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 23, 2018 8:59:59 GMT -5
FORD, KAVANAUGH, AND JUDGE NEED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. THE OTHERS HAVE ZERO IMPACT. It would, perhaps, be good if they did. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think she's lying. I think she's relaying something that's crystal clear to her, and that she absolutely knows not only the whats but also the whos. That said, it's--at this point in time--pretty much she said/he said, no? I see a lot of people on FB gleefully wringing theirs hands because Kavanaugh could still be charged with a crime here (because of the where), but what prosecutor would bring this to a grand jury, let alone to trial? And the only person who can be compelled to testify before the Senate is Kavanaugh, no? If Judge says "no thanks," that's the end of it. Indeed, Ford could decline to testify, as well. After all, there's no real benefit that I can see--re the assault--to her for testifying. A good part of me thinks she'd done enough. She's told her story, people have looked into it, and they've reached their conclusions. Putting her in front of those bastards in the Senate is more about them posturing than it is a search for truth (let alone for justice).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 9:06:50 GMT -5
Putting her in front of those bastards in the Senate is more about them posturing than it is a search for truth (let alone for justice). I really wish I didn't agree with this, but I do. They're going to put her through hell, and it will all be posturing. My intended point was mostly that only the three of them would have relevant memories of the party and alleged assault, and the rest of these people being dredged up are really not relevant. They'd only be relevant if one of the three had confided in them at some point, and then only for that fact: "she/he told me this."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 23, 2018 9:13:24 GMT -5
By the time she told me, I couldn't have said which of a zillion parties this was, or verified for sure that I had been at this particular one. On this, I'd note that Kavanaugh and I are the same age. I went to a fair number of parties in high school. And a fair number more in college. If an old friend said to me "remember that party where I hooked up with so and so?" I might remember that they hooked up, if there was something memorable about it (for instance, I remember that a couple of old friends hooked up one night* because they ran through the fraternity residential area in towels--and nothing else--at one point in the evening). But vaguely recalling an incident like that doesn't mean I remember the specifics of it, what day it was, what party it was, who else was there, etc. I might be able to reason out some of these things, but that's not the same thing as remembering them, and it's hardly reflective of any level of certainty. * Interesting side note on the two parties involved: the guy came out after college (he's quite happy and quite successful, btw). The girl is someone who I may have alluded to in past threads. She was--in college--something of a sex fiend. And I absolutely do remember her saying to me and others things like "I'm going to get so and so drunk so I can take advantage of him." And I also absolutely know that she did that on at least two occasions (whether she did in the above one, I don't actually know).
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 23, 2018 10:31:11 GMT -5
Actually, as I understand, everyone who was at this alleged party has given their testimony in such a way that would be under oath. Sworn statements, affidavits, etc. Kavanaugh as well. Only Ford has not. She in negotiating the terms of how she'll appear under oath. One of her demands has been that Kavanaugh testify before her, which is not how these things work. How is he supposed to respond to things she says before she says them?
The fact than none of them remember the party isn't insignificant. It may not prove the party didn't happen,but it also means nothing about the party was significant enough to stand out in any of their minds, like your best friend being in tears, leaving the party. Also, Ford's friend also said she didn't know Kavanaugh. This wasn't a party of 50 people. She says she has not recollection of the party or him.
I'm not saying their not remembering the party proves it didn't happen, but I hardly think it's 100 % meaningless.
At the end of the day, right now we have a reasonable allegation of something that could have happened with no evidence to corroborate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 12:05:19 GMT -5
It is not relevant. At all.
If she said "It happened in the living room and everyone saw and I was screaming," yes, I'd think they'd remember. But the most they'd have to remember here is three people not being in front of them for a period of time at a party (which isn't at all remarkable).
The party wasn't memorable to them because they didn't see the attack. And otherwise, this was a party like a zillion others.
I don't remember the party where my friend was taken advantage of. That isn't relevant.
|
|