Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[Ziggurat]

Useful if you're raped. Less useful for attempted rape.

Joe picked the hypothetical of rape, not me. And unless you want to fundamentally upend our entire concept of justice (which some people do, BTW, but no one here has actually stated they do), then you need evidence to convict someone of a crime. Without evidence, you cannot convict them of a crime. Why is that a hard concept for people to accept? Have you not thought through the consequences of making a mere accusation suffice to damn someone?

 

[theprestige]

But your entire argument is "We can't prove she doesn't have an ulterior motive."

No.

The argument is that she would have no motive to lie. The counter-argument is that there are many plausible motives to lie that cannot be ruled out.

 

[Belz...]

No, Joe. If you're ever sexually assaulted, make sure you get some actual evidence, so that you don't have to depend on claiming purity of motive.

Yeah be sure to tape the event and get sperm samples from the attacker, whenever possible.

 

[Elagabalus]

I won't speak for anyone else, but I categorically reject your reversal of the burden of proof. If you have evidence for this person being motivated by money, then go ahead and present it. This conspiracy thinking 'just asking questions' approach is crap.

^^This^^

 

[JoeMorgue]

But in either case, you aren't presenting any reason for why money couldn't be a motivating factor.

How is it that you somehow simultaneously don't understand that this isn't a court case with prosecutors and a defense and argue for a "You can't prove a negative" burden of proof reversal which would never fly in a court room?

No concept of reasonable doubt; legal, social, or moral, requires the "Nobody anywhere can make up any possible scenario that refutes it" standard.

You might as well go full solipsism, demand we prove Ford isn't a brain in a jar and Kavanaugh isn't a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave.

 

[Elagabalus]

No.

The argument is that she would have no motive to lie. The counter-argument is that there are many plausible motives to lie that cannot be ruled out.

The CT threads are that way >>>

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah be sure to tape the event and get sperm samples from the attacker, whenever possible.

A rape kit makes a lovely stocking stuffer for the special women in your life.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah be sure to tape the event and get sperm samples from the attacker, whenever possible.

No video, no crime? I see you're going with the Keith Ellison defense. This bit is particularly interesting:

“An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists,”​

This is probably the standard of probable cause that led the FBI to shelve Ford's initial complaint when Senator Feinstein forwarded it to them.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It might be why she didn't report it, if it happened. But you're kind of jumping the gun in concluding that it did.

No. If you read my whole post the meaning was clear. These things don't get reported because a case like hers would have brought shame and derision upon her and her family and nothing would have happened to Kav. Nothing. No matter how many witnesses at that time confirmed her story, so long as Kav denied it the facts of her story would not have been enough to prosecute.

What evidence could she have taken to a DA at that time to get any redress for this assault?

 

[theprestige]

The CT threads are that way >>>

Do you believe Ford has no motive to lie?

 

[Belz...]

You've never heard of a rape kit?

She wasn't raped. Now what?

 

[Belz...]

But your entire argument is "We can't prove she doesn't have an ulterior motive."

It's almost as if she's the one on trial.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's almost as if she's the one on trial.

And there's not even a trial.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Joe picked the hypothetical of rape, not me. And unless you want to fundamentally upend our entire concept of justice (which some people do, BTW, but no one here has actually stated they do), then you need evidence to convict someone of a crime. Without evidence, you cannot convict them of a crime. Why is that a hard concept for people to accept? Have you not thought through the consequences of making a mere accusation suffice to damn someone?

No we don't. The point is, this is not a criminal court, it is a job interview.

If you own a jewelry store do you hire the guy whose references say they were never able to prove he stole from them, but they really noticed a lot of loss while he was there? No, you don't. Not if there are literally dozens of equally qualified candidates lined up waiting for the chance at this job. And especially if they act like a jerk when you have the temerity to ask them about it.

 

[Belz...]

If she's telling the truth, then she's been living the life of a victim without getting a payout for it, why wouldn't she like a payout?

Don't you see how callous this sounds? This is la-la land, Zig.

Joe picked the hypothetical of rape, not me. And unless you want to fundamentally upend our entire concept of justice (which some people do, BTW, but no one here has actually stated they do), then you need evidence to convict someone of a crime. Without evidence, you cannot convict them of a crime. Why is that a hard concept for people to accept? Have you not thought through the consequences of making a mere accusation suffice to damn someone?

There has to be a way to preserve the principles of Western justice without throwing victims reluctant to come forward under the bus.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know what her intent was. But it's a plausible one, and you're naive if you think it couldn't be a factor. And that's the case even if she's telling the truth. Money can make a difference. Is that really so hard to understand?

Oh, brother. Spare me. Sure, Ford sends a letter and insists in it that she remains ANONYMOUS. She does not want to come out to the public. She is forced to do so when someone leaks the letter. Was she in on that? Or did she leak it herself as part of this nefarious plot? She only came forward publicly when she had journalists showing up at her home and her job. That sure smell so of someone who wanted to make money off a go fund me drive.

Blasey-Ford

is an American professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.[7] Widely published in her field, she specializes in designing statistical models for research projects.[8] During her academic career, Ford has worked as a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine Collaborative Clinical Psychology Program

I'd think she makes a darn good living. Ford's husband is a mechanical engineer, average income about $100,000 per year.

Yet you think it possible that she has gone through all this on the off chance she would make money from some Go Fund Me campaign?

Sorry, but your scenario reeks of desperation besides being completely illogical.

 

[Belz...]

No video, no crime? I see you're going with the Keith Ellison defense. This bit is particularly interesting:

“An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists,”​

This is probably the standard of probable cause that led the FBI to shelve Ford's initial complaint when Senator Feinstein forwarded it to them.

Ok someone is going to have to explain the concept of sarcasm to you.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, brother. Spare me. Sure, Ford sends a letter and insists in it that she remains ANONYMOUS. She does not want to come out to the public. She is forced to do so when someone leaks the letter.

Oops.

 

[Belz...]

No we don't. The point is, this is not a criminal court, it is a job interview.

If you own a jewelry store do you hire the guy whose references say they were never able to prove he stole from them, but they really noticed a lot of loss while he was there? No, you don't. Not if there are literally dozens of equally qualified candidates lined up waiting for the chance at this job. And especially if they act like a jerk when you have the temerity to ask them about it.

Sorry, is the applicant Republican or Democrat?

 

[Stacyhs]

I won't speak for anyone else, but I categorically reject your reversal of the burden of proof. If you have evidence for this person being motivated by money, then go ahead and present it. This conspiracy thinking 'just asking questions' approach is crap.

It's beyond ludicrous and reveals the depths to which some people would go in order to support Kavanaugh.