New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
As anyone pointed out that after 30+ years there is essentially no way either of them remember the event correctly?
 
ahhell said:
As anyone pointed out that after 30+ years there is essentially no way either of them remember the event correctly?
Click to expand...
Its certainly possible that many of the details will become fuzzy. (Did it happen on a Weekend or weeknight? What music was playing?) It is less likely for someone to remember incorrectly whether the incident happened at all, and if it did the people that were involved (if they knew their identities before hand.)
 
ahhell said:
As anyone pointed out that after 30+ years there is essentially no way either of them remember the event correctly?
Click to expand...

After 30+ years, it's reasonable to ask if there even was an event to remember in the first place.

It's one thing to assess people's ability to remember a documented occurrence, thirty years later. The Challenger explosion, for example. Regardless of what you remember, we can always compare your recollection to the documentary evidence that the event actually happened, and happened in a particular way.

In this case, there is no documentary evidence that the event happened, only the claimant's recollection over the years. So I think it begs the question, to say that Kavanaugh probably can't remember the event correctly, when we can't even say with confidence that there was an event for him to remember in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I wasn't inferring anything specific, just saying that if it were my friend, I'd want to testify. And Judge has written a book about his excessive drinking, etc. at high school. Kavanaugh features throwing up in the back of a car.
Click to expand...
No, no...”O’Kavenaugh”. A completely fictional creation, not based on any real person whatsoever.
 
theprestige said:
After 30+ years, it's reasonable to ask if there even was an event to remember in the first place.

It's one thing to assess people's ability to remember a documented occurrence, thirty years later. The Challenger explosion, for example. Regardless of what you remember, we can always compare your recollection to the documentary evidence that the event actually happened, and happened in a particular way.

In this case, there is no documentary evidence that the event happened, only the claimant's recollection over the years. So I think it begs the question, to say that Kavanaugh probably can't remember the event correctly, when we can't even say with confidence that there was an event for him to remember in the first place.
Click to expand...
Can I just say that theprestige ought to be recognized for using "begs the question" correctly? Whether or not we agree with him, the boy knows the meaning of the term, which puts him in the literate minority.
 
rdwight said:
Few things maybe someone can clear up. Why is she being referenced at 15 during the incident, him 17, but the specific year unknown? We do know the year they were born, and would assume the summer of said year would be the time this occurred. Or were those ages guessed or made up whole cloth?

Beyond that not sure what evidence there is to gain by testimony in front of the senate. Per her account, she told no one of the incident at the time. Of the people she remembers there, both have denied. So what exactly will her testimony shed light on that her original statement does not convey? Hell, what investigation can be expanded with so little information.

That is not to say she is lieing or he is innocent, but it remains a tough road to tread finding anything about this specific instance that would sway beyond how believable the story and person are. Guess that's all there is to gain. How convinced of her story she is, and how convinced is he of the denial.
Click to expand...
But maybe, unbeknownst to her, one or both of them did. Seems that might be a pretty reasonable rationale for further investigation.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
As anyone pointed out that after 30+ years there is essentially no way either of them remember the event correctly?
Click to expand...
Has anyone pointed out that what you're saying is essentially a lie?

While someone may forget a date, or the color of a room, the chances of forgetting an assault and attempted rape, including the identity of the attacker (if known), are pretty much zero, unless one is being sexually assaulted on a regular basis.

The persistence of traumatic memory is the reason that PTSD exists. If it was really so easy to forget traumas, we'd need a lot fewer therapists.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
But maybe, unbeknownst to her, one or both of them did. Seems that might be a pretty reasonable rationale for further investigation.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem that reasonable to me.

Investigating whether an alleged criminal allegedly talked about their alleged crime to hypothetical alleged accomplices 30 years ago seems like an obvious waste of law enforcement resources.
 
The Big Dog said:
There is for him (and his witness): "I remember that it never happened, period."
Click to expand...

Which is an odd thing to say, really, given that they don't know what party is being referred to, and there's documentary evidence from Mike Judge that both of them had a habit of getting blackout drunk at that time in their lives.
 
Bob001 said:
She has said it was probably 1982. She's not clear about the date or the place.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I had read that article but at the top is says "Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s.."

Guess I overlooked the more specific date given.

Bob001 said:
Testimony by both parties and any other witnesses would be under oath. That means that a lie by either party -- or any other witnesses they bring in -- would be a criminal offense. They want to assess everybody's credibility. If she says "this happened to me," and he says "Golly, I was drinking a lot, I just don't remember," that alone would be devastating.
Click to expand...

I don't think perjury will really be an issue. Saying you don't remember a party that happened 35 years ago is going to be hard to prove a lie, and saying the assault didn't happen will be equally as hard to prove a lie. I assume both will be thoroughly coached on how to answer questions that might reflect poorly. Could it happen? Sure. But I would put my money on the Judge knowing how to respond to questioning better than someone not involved in this sort of thing more regularly.
 
theprestige said:
Doesn't seem that reasonable to me.

Investigating whether an alleged criminal allegedly talked about their alleged crime to hypothetical alleged accomplices 30 years ago seems like an obvious waste of law enforcement resources.
Click to expand...

Why? Lot's of people get sentenced to life in prison for things they do when they are 17. Appeals go on, these things get re-litigated for decades. It's pretty common for these things to be rehashed in courts decades later.

In this case, we are not even talking about court, just a background investigation, the stakes are much lower. At worst, Kavanaugh doesn't get the new job.
 
Last edited:
Here's the thing that's gnawing at me. It seems very odd that if she were to fabricate a story that she would not only invent a third party witness, but make him an unwitting hero and a friend of Kavanaugh's. Plus, she remembers his name. Why not just simplify the story and say they were alone in the room so that it's he said-she said? But of course she's just completely making it all up, so details such as this demonstrate she's quite cunning indeed.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Which is an odd thing to say, really, given that they don't know what party is being referred to, and there's documentary evidence from Mike Judge that both of them had a habit of getting blackout drunk at that time in their lives.
Click to expand...

It is not odd, they are saying that no party like she described ever occurred.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
No, per her account, she didn't provide details until 2012. According to a report I linked to upthread, the White House is worried by rumours that two school friends of Ford's can corroborate that she told them about the incident at the time.
Click to expand...

Per the washingtonpost -
Ford said she has not spoken with Kavanaugh since that night. And she told no one at the time what had happened to her. She was terrified, she said, that she would be in trouble if her parents realized she had been at a party where teenagers were drinking, and she worried they might figure it out even if she did not tell them.

“My biggest fear was, do I look like someone just attacked me?” she said. She said she recalled thinking: “I’m not ever telling anyone this. This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.”
Click to expand...

Rumors of someone else hearing rumors is pretty thin. Although it is possible she mis-remembers telling some friends about it at some point. That also leads to what she told them exactly, ie boys from that school, boys at this party, Mike Judge and his friend, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom