Discussion»Questions»Politics» How "credible" could an accusation be when a time and place cant be established and all witnesses deny it ever happened?
Hello Don Barzini I agree we should look at the credibility of allegations case by case. This particular case though seems to seek the opposite, that because she is a woman, we need to believe her or face the label of misogynist. I cannot speak to the motivations of a stranger, what motivates anyone?. From what I understand she was hoping that the issue would be handled confidentially, but lets assume, for the purpose of responding to your comment, that she was willing to go public and face those intrusions..I can think of many possible motivations. She may have felt it her duty to deny a conservative justice and a Trump nominee. She has already attained Hero status, especially among her peers. Notoriety.. There are a few things that vex me...No time, date or location can be given. None of her witnesses can corroborate her story..her claim that she could not fly to washington because of the stress and trauma from the event while having a long history to flying off to distant places... .
I agree there are many questionable details here. I can’t say whether your reasoning is accurate or not, but lying to Congress is no small matter; and it intrigues me only in the fact that she felt it important enough to spill her dignity and risk her integrity to publicly denigrate his for some reason. I don’t buy the strictly political argument, it seems to me something more personal is in play.
Beyond that, I don’t care one iota about the entire sordid episode, as I doubt it will make any difference in the end result. I tend to agree with what Stu Bee said as well.
Hello again Don Barzini... I tried to word my question to reflect the process and evidence, not her personally.. I have no idea whether this particular woman is "credible" or not, Looking at the gaps and inconsistencies in her accusations gives me doubt. I am also not making a statement as to anyone's guilt or innocence and like you, I am not too concerned with whether or not Kavanaugh makes it on the bench. My concern, and what I do care about is the process and what seems to be a changing of the measure of reasonable doubt and due process. Is an unsubstantiated accusation enough to ruin a mans life? "First they came for ______, and I did nothing, then they came for ____, and again, I did nothing. Then they came for me........"
No. I never believe these stories about attacks from years ago. It's usually women. They have all the rights a victim could want but they have to report crimes or they have no credibility. Even if they convince a jury, I am never convinced. I believe one of the worse things legislatures have done (in the states where they have don it) is to remove the SOL on rape. That is absolutely discriminatory to men on its face.
As someone who went through stuff over 40 years ago, I believe the claimants.
Back then women and girls were often not believed. Also, the shame was so great that many suffered in silence. No one paid attention to others at parties because they were all doing their own thing in little cliques or groups. Parents who were supposed to be chaperoning would get bored and go off into another area of the house, to drink and have their own party. The most untrustworthy boys were the ones from the top private schools; their collective attitude towards females was to try to manipulate, drug and use girls. Most of the girls went hoping to meet boys who would later become their boyfriends; they were completely naïve about the boys' intentions and goals. As the years go by, we discover more and more how those experiences impacted us. The memories never fade.
If I had been raped by someone who was just about to be elected to the highest role of judgment in the land, I'd want what he did to me to be known - not out of revenge, but because how he thinks about women and women's rights will influence his interpretation of the law, and the law of precedence in case histories thereafter.
A man can be callow and foolish in his youth, and allowances should be made that he has very likely matured and would be unlikely to do the same things again. But he can also be someone who has been raised with a double standard and no insight into the widespread suffering and injustices that occur as a result of such values. So the important thing would be a psychological evaluation of his current beliefs and attitudes.
When several women come forward with similar claims, one has to wonder if it reflects an ongoing attitude and pattern in the man. To dismiss such claims without things like lie-detector tests and psychological interviews with all parties involved seems to me like madness. If the man has nothing to fear, he should be open to cross-examination of both himself and his accusers.
This post was edited by inky at September 30, 2018 3:03 PM MDT
I don't know about that. I went to private schools 40 - 45 years ago and the boys were mostly gentlemen. Which does not mean they did not want to get with us. But they certainly did not abuse or coerce us because most of us were happy to be with them and receive the affirmation that went with that as well as whatever enjoyment we had.
Such hearing and "investigations" which are entirely politically motivated don't help anyone and cheapen the tone of our entire government. Is that really all our lawmakers and elected representative our interested in? Whether or not we have been raped or someone tried to rape us? All pretty silly - of course most of us have been and we don't need our private affairs dragged all over the media and papers to tell everyone. I would like to think we are above such cheapening of ourselves and our institutions with such goings-on. We can either take care of ourselves or we cannot. If we cannot then we have no business complaining about it. Especially at the last possible minute where we now we can get our five minutes of fame. Don't know about anyone else but I do not want to be known simply because someone raped me or tried to. That is not what I want my life to be about not have I ever wanted it to be.
I disagree. You might have been lucky in your private schooling, but that is not the norm for most private schools. The record is there in the criminal trials. Boys educated in single-sex schools tend not to see girls as fellow human beings - instead they perceive them as sex objects, and everything in the private school culture encourages it. Sex is hidden in pornographic magazines in drawers full of filthy underpants and socks. I generalize; of course there are boys who are an exception to the norm.
I agree with Stu B that a judge of the highest court in the land must be held to an exceptionally high standard, irrespective of his political orientation. It is not acceptable for such a person to have a stained history.
It might be tempting to say, "but that's impossible - everyone's stained", but actually that's just not true. Not every young man rapes women. In fact, thankfully, most never do. So it should be pretty easy for the conservatives to find a judge of sufficient experience and expertise who has never abused a woman.
Hello Nom de Plume... "The memories never fade"...Apparently not...we are being told that they indeed do, such as a time, place or date, about whether or not conversations took place, whether or not a key document was read over the phone or given in person...etc... "So the important thing would be a psychological evaluation of his current beliefs and attitudes." He went through thorough vetting to determine his current attitudes, and from all reports his attitudes have been very healthy, as evidenced from the countless women who have testified to such... "If the man has nothing to fear, he should be open to cross-examination of both himself and his accusers" That is not the way our system works, we have the 5th and 6th amendments that say otherwise. If the accuser cannot make a case, there is no need for the accused to testify...It is up to the accuser to prove their case, the burden does not rest on the accused to disprove.
I will admit that my memory tests a lot higher than average - 96% accurate. It's the 4% that is always the worry - always the thing to double check and make sure of via whatever traces of evidence remain. In my case, I keep a journal, so that helps.
When I say psychological evaluation, I mean literally that. The vetting so far has come from questions within the formal process without testing of the validity of his answers; it has not employed experts in reading tells. We already have evidence that he has lied. For instance, he replied that he had always been a very light drinker. But in his high school yearbook, he boasted that he was the leader of the beach festivities (which included a massive amount of excessive drinking), and one of his former peers at university says he was always a heavy drinker when they drank together. This means we have evidence that he lied on one question, presumably because he knows Trump is a tea-totaller and wanted to make a good impression on him. Unfortunately, this suggests that he will lie for convenience if it suits his interests - and that means that every other claim needs to be checked.
Why bother to "accuse" anyone. Isn't that a waste of time that would be better spent on attending to our own affairs? Are we all so perfect that we can afford to go around accusing others?
Don Barzini 