|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 23, 2018 12:17:29 GMT -5
It's not exonerating, but to say it's not relevant at all?
It means that they can't recall the party at all. "Hey, I remember she was upset as we left that party, but she didn't say why."
Also, she doesn't recall even knowing Kavanaugh. To me, that's the bigger part.
So everyone who was at the party according to Ford has said they don't remember there being a party under threat of perjury charges. I don't think that's irrelevant. Again, it might not be proof of innocence, but how can you really expect him to prove his innocence?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 23, 2018 12:23:08 GMT -5
Let me put it another way. Imagine she had said she remembered the party, would that be relevant?
Or if she said Kavanaugh was there at the party? What about then?
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 23, 2018 13:25:14 GMT -5
I wonder if Kavanaugh were a Catholic priest and Ford were a grown man making an accusation that he'd been sexually assaulted by him 35 years ago, if there'd be as much scrutiny over minutia going on here.
Of course, the accusation wouldn't necessarily be on any firmer ground evidence-wise, but it is interesting the reaction usually given to that type of circumstance but not to this one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 14:15:06 GMT -5
Let me put it another way. Imagine she had said she remembered the party, would that be relevant? Or if she said Kavanaugh was there at the party? What about then? Only possibly a tiny bit relevant, maybe, as corroboration that such a party might have happened -- but frankly, unless they had some reason for remembering this particular party, I wouldn't give it much weight at all even for that. They might be remembering a similar party E.g., if it we're a Halloween party and they dressed in particular costumes. Or if someone trenched the lawn. Or if they'd never been to another party. Then they might have reason to recall it and be sure it was the same one. Me, I went to a billion parties as a teen, large and small, most including differing mixes of the same group of kids. Most of them blur together-- I only remember ones where something happened in front of me or to me to make them stick out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 14:28:36 GMT -5
To give an example from Real Life:
The client I got out of prison was on a plane at the time his crime was committed. Besides his boarding pass etc., one of the flight attendants remembered him.
Okay, flight attendants see a zillion passengers. so that wouldn't be particularly convincing, except my client had never flown before. He was so nervous at the window seat, the attendant switched him to an aisle. He also served him a drink and because my client looked so young, checked his ID. Also, he was nervously chatting to the attendant about why he was flying, etc. Etc. My client's orgiginal lawyer (his family couldn't afford to keep him) approached US Air immediately after my client was arrested,and the attendant remembered both his original seat and the one he switched to, and his last name, the fact he'd never flown before,Xmas and that he was visiting his girlfriend's college, and was able to ID him in a picture.
The only reason it was credible that he remembered my client was because he'd interacted with him more than usual and the totality of circumstances made it memorable. Otherwise, I don't think it would have been all that believable.
If you are wondering, the attendant executed a sworn affidavit, but then my client's new, free lawyer decided not to call him as a witness (or introduce the boarding pass into evidence) because it was just too much trouble, apparently. (Which is how my client lost 7 years of his life-- the jury only heard my client's girlfriend's testimony. Grrr.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 15:06:39 GMT -5
To note, normally speaking, I would still expect the flight attendant to not remember that somewhat unusual incident for, say, decades. It's not unusual enough. it's memorable enough to stick out for maybe a month or even a couple months, but not years. But given that he was approached to discuss it and lay it all out in a sworn affidavit while the memory was fresh, the memory was cemented forever.
If none of that had happened, I wouldn't find a flight attendant who claimed to remember a particular flight much credit. Something needs to stand out for it to be credible.
The same is true for a high school party.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 23, 2018 15:12:11 GMT -5
Only possibly a tiny bit relevant, maybe, as corroboration that such a party might have happened -- but frankly, unless they had some reason for remembering this particular party, I wouldn't give it much weight at all even for that. They might be remembering a similar party Right. Unless someone remembers the incident in question, there's no way that they can actually say "yeah, I remember that party" with any sort of certainty, since there is no solid date stamp on the party. Dredging up people who say they do or don't remember a non-specific event is an exercise in futility. For instance, suppose I claimed that I joined the mile high club with fellow passenger X on a flight in, oh, 1990. And that I further claim that I think it was a flight from Miami to Chicago. Passenger X, however, denies that this ever happened. Anyone who claims that they remember being on a flight from Miami to Chicago in 1990 isn't evidence in support of me or Passenger X, unless they can claim that we were both absolutely on the flight and a) that they know we both went into the same bathroom at the same time (support for my claim) or b) that we sat apart and never were up at the same time (which is only verrrrrry minor support for Passenger X, because the flight is still unspecified and there was more than one flight from Miami to Chicago in 1990). So again, anyone who says that do or that they don't remember this UNSPECIFIED party--and nothing else--isn't adding anything at all, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 17:49:16 GMT -5
Oh my God. Now Kavanaugh is pulling out his calendars from 1982 to show that there's no mention of a party with these guests listed onit.
Um. What teenager keeps detailed calendars of all their underage drinking activities? how many of those then keeps those calendars for thirty-five years? None, that's how many.
I swear, his and his team's actions have done more to convince me Ford is telling the truth than Ford has. Dude and his team really do act guilty It is just astounding.
ETA:
It's pretty clear what kind of party this would have been, and it's not the kind you neatly document on a calendar. It's the kind where you say "hey, my parents are out of town for the weekend -- let's get some beer and pot and have a party." I went to a lot of them in my day...
ETA:
Even if you assume he was the weirdest teen in the world and kept a calendar of his activities at 17, (a) this kind of party wouldn't have been on it, and (b) he wouldn't have it 36 years later. Come on, it's just insane.
GOP -- do better.
ETA:
Twitter rumor afloat there's another accuser. We'll see.
I really, really think they need a new nominee. And they need to look at Kavanaugh's role in that batshit "let's accuse another random classmate plan." If Kavanaugh knew about that, he should be removed from his current seat, as well.
What a circus.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Sept 23, 2018 18:53:34 GMT -5
Hearing rumors that someone wants to come forward with another accuser now, one that would implicate both Kavanaugh and Judge. No details yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 18:53:44 GMT -5
A new allegation, this time from Kavanaugh's years at Yale. Article by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 18:56:48 GMT -5
Oh, my.
And it's not the same woman as in the Ronan Farrow story. It's a third woman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 19:37:35 GMT -5
From the New Yorker piece:
Check out @matthewamiller’s Tweet:
Um, this is not a good look for Senate Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 24, 2018 20:03:14 GMT -5
Having now read Farrow's and Mayer's piece, I gotta say that I'm finding these new allegations far more problematic--from the standpoint of believing them--than those leveled by Ford. It opens with this: I'm not sure how a conversation with lawyers can lead one to move from uncertainty to certainty about something that happened 34 years ago. Her allegations are--with respect to a lot of what has been said in this thread about memory--kinda the opposite of Ford's. I wouldn't want to suppose that she is lying, to be sure, but barring some kind of additional evidence--like someone else confirming that they saw this, since it happened in front of others, according to her--I don't think this is something that should be accepted out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Sept 24, 2018 20:53:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gaild on Sept 25, 2018 2:54:08 GMT -5
I agree with what Optimus has said. However, a word of caution about the 'false memory syndrome.' A lot has been written about FMS, usually by people who are not clinicians and do not work with traumatized people on a daily basis. There is no doubt that 1 in 5 people can have a memory 'implanted' by suggestion but false memories do not stand up very well when clinically scrutinized. (I have to wonder how well such a scrutiny was conducted in the cases that led to a wrongful conviction of the accused.) If you are fascinated by the subject, there is an excellent book on it: Memory and Abuse, by Charles L. Whitfield, M.D. - Health Communications, Inc, Florida, USA. ISBN 1-55874-320-0
That said, human memory, particularly on long past events, is not necessarily accurate at all. The mind is inclined to reduce or embellish details and if there has been other abuse, the details of separate events can become entangled. Dates, times, places, even who was there (if there were several people) and what exactly happened, can be blurred into other events. This is the problem when it comes to lawsuits. Courts of law need precise information and verification and abuse victims usually can't provide that precision. It often comes down to the he said, she said, kind of thing.
Spending time with the lawyers 'discussing' the allegation could help crystallize it in this accuser's mind but that doesn't mean that the details are necessarily accurate. She could be remembering the wrong details brilliantly. IMHO, she would be better off spending that time with clinically trained professional who specializes in memory recovery.
I hear there is a third accuser about to come forward. Hmm.
|
|