4 ms·

Sure it could have been, which is why I said "if Dr. Ford was intentionally lying". If you believe that she was sincere though, I think it's much more likely t

Sure it could have been, which is why I said "if Dr. Ford was intentionally lying". If you believe that she was sincere though, I think it's much more likely that Kavanaugh was lying to protect himself than it was that an assault victim randomly mixed him up with her assaulter. From her story she knew him and had fairly prolonged close contact with him. It wasn't like she just caught a glimpse of him from a distance. The mistaken identity defense was just a way for people to say they didn't believe the story without calling her a liar.

paulddraper 8y ago
There's the identification during the event, and there's the identification many, many years later (even 2012 was still 30 years after the event). > I think it's much more likely that Kavanaugh was lying to protect himself than it was that an assault victim randomly mixed him up with her assaulter. I agree. And if it were 1982 that would weight heavily. On the other hand, delaying charges for multiple decades, then bringing them out within a narrow several-week window that happens to have the greatest possible maximum political effect...what are the probabilities of underlying motivation? Unfortunately, either way there are some incredulous events.
- learc83 8y ago
  > There's the identification during the event, and there's the identification many, many years later (even 2012 was still 30 years after the event). So you think it's likely that she was attacked by someone in 1982, but she didn't know who that person was at the time, and then she randomly decided in 2012 that it was this one guy she knew from high school? Or are you saying it’s likely that she knew who it was in 1982, and then in 2012 she misremembered and decided it was someone else? >I agree. And if it were 1982 that would weight heavily. On the other hand, delaying charges for multiple decades, In the early 2000s my younger sister had a similar event happen to her. 2 guys grabbed her and tried to pull her clothes off at a party. My parents called the police, a detective came out and interviewed my sister. He interviewed the guys. The guys denied it. There was no way to prove that she wasn’t lying. The result: Sorry nothing we can do. It’s your word against theirs. Don’t go to parties. Christine Ford’s assault allegedly happened in 1982. What do you think the police response would have done in 1982 if girl accused 2 boys of sexual assault, with no evidence, and no witnesses? Keeping in mind one of the boys was the son of a judge. More importantly what do you think a 15 year old girl in 1982 would have thought the response would have been? >then bringing them out within a narrow several-week window that happens to have the greatest possible maximum political effect...what are the probabilities of underlying motivation? She told her therapist in 2012. What are the probabilities that she was prescient enough in 2012 to know that some day Kavanaugh would be nominated for SCOTUS so she better start laying the groundwork for an attack? She called The Washington Post, contacted her congressman, and wrote a letter to her senator in July. Right after Kavanaugh was nominated. >Unfortunately, either way there are some incredulous events. Nothing about a 15 year old girl not going to the police about a crime she can’t prove is hard to believe. If anything is hard to believe it’s Kavanaugh’s responses to the questioning. Especially his explanation of “Renate Alumnius”. I don’t buy that one for a second. Is her testimony enough to convict Kavanaugh of a crime? Certainly not--nor do I think it should be. Personally I’d say there’s a better than 50% chance it’s true though.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    > My parents called the police, a detective came out and interviewed my sister. And this is what is supposed to happen. Unfortunately, there wasn't a conviction (two of the proverbial 10 guilty free), but your sister has far, far, far more credibility than if she contacted law enforcement in 2040 when one of them was in the public spotlight, or about to be promoted. Everything about her and your parents behavior in that situation is very consistent. > she called The Washington Post, contacted her congressman, and wrote a letter to her senator in July. Right after Kavanaugh was nominated. Exactly. Assume -- just for a minute -- that Ford is lying. At what point would she have accused Kavanaugh? 1982? 1983? 1984? 1985? 1986? 1987? 1988? 1989?...2012? 2013?...Jan 2018? Feb 2018? Mar 2018?...Or July 2018? Obviously that she waited until July 2018 doesn't prove she's wrong. It's just circumstantial. > Especially his explanation of “Renate Alumnius”. Agreed. Or Ford's explanation of a phobia of flying so intense she nearly couldn't leave her hometown.
    - learc83 8y ago
      >And this is what is supposed to happen. Unfortunately, there wasn't a conviction (two of the proverbial 10 guilty free), but your sister has far, far, far more credibility than if she contacted law enforcement in 2040 when one of them was in the public spotlight, or about to be promoted. Everything about her and your parents behavior in that situation is very consistent. Yes she does. That's not the point of my story. The point is that many women today see the end result and they don’t think it’s worth the public shame. 30 years ago in 1982 when a rape investigation could end up with the victim being accused of wanting it because they dressed too slutty. It’s not about what women should do it’s about what they actually do. The evidence shows that they are very likely not to immediately report assaults. >Exactly. Assume -- just for a minute -- that Ford is lying. At what point would she have accused Kavanaugh? 1982? 1983? 1984? 1985? 1986? 1987? 1988? 1989?...2012? 2013?...Jan 2018? Feb 2018? Mar 2018?...Or July 2018? If she was lying. She was lying in 2012. The potential motive of wanting to sink a SCOTUS nominee, didn’t hold in 2012. And since she didn’t do so publicly, the potential publicity motive didn’t hold then either. Her testimony isn’t proof, but it’s strong enough evidence that I would pass on the candidate if I were interviewing him for a job. >Agreed. Or Ford's explanation of a phobia of flying so intense she nearly couldn't leave her hometown. This explanation? ------------- Mitchell: I ask that because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true? Ford: Well, I was willing—I was hoping that they would come to me. But then realized that was an unrealistic request. Mitchell: It would have been a quicker trip for me. [Both laugh.] Ford: Yes. So, that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane. ------------- It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hate flying, but I fly 2 or 3 times a year for work because they pay me a lot of money to do it. I won’t do it if I can avoid it, but with sufficient motivation I will.

paulddraper 8y ago

There's the identification during the event, and there's the identification many, many years later (even 2012 was still 30 years after the event). > I think it's much more likely that Kavanaugh was lying to protect himself than it was that an assault victim randomly mixed him up with her assaulter. I agree. And if it were 1982 that would weight heavily. On the other hand, delaying charges for multiple decades, then bringing them out within a narrow several-week window that happens to have the greatest possible maximum political effect...what are the probabilities of underlying motivation? Unfortunately, either way there are some incredulous events.

learc83 8y ago
> There's the identification during the event, and there's the identification many, many years later (even 2012 was still 30 years after the event). So you think it's likely that she was attacked by someone in 1982, but she didn't know who that person was at the time, and then she randomly decided in 2012 that it was this one guy she knew from high school? Or are you saying it’s likely that she knew who it was in 1982, and then in 2012 she misremembered and decided it was someone else? >I agree. And if it were 1982 that would weight heavily. On the other hand, delaying charges for multiple decades, In the early 2000s my younger sister had a similar event happen to her. 2 guys grabbed her and tried to pull her clothes off at a party. My parents called the police, a detective came out and interviewed my sister. He interviewed the guys. The guys denied it. There was no way to prove that she wasn’t lying. The result: Sorry nothing we can do. It’s your word against theirs. Don’t go to parties. Christine Ford’s assault allegedly happened in 1982. What do you think the police response would have done in 1982 if girl accused 2 boys of sexual assault, with no evidence, and no witnesses? Keeping in mind one of the boys was the son of a judge. More importantly what do you think a 15 year old girl in 1982 would have thought the response would have been? >then bringing them out within a narrow several-week window that happens to have the greatest possible maximum political effect...what are the probabilities of underlying motivation? She told her therapist in 2012. What are the probabilities that she was prescient enough in 2012 to know that some day Kavanaugh would be nominated for SCOTUS so she better start laying the groundwork for an attack? She called The Washington Post, contacted her congressman, and wrote a letter to her senator in July. Right after Kavanaugh was nominated. >Unfortunately, either way there are some incredulous events. Nothing about a 15 year old girl not going to the police about a crime she can’t prove is hard to believe. If anything is hard to believe it’s Kavanaugh’s responses to the questioning. Especially his explanation of “Renate Alumnius”. I don’t buy that one for a second. Is her testimony enough to convict Kavanaugh of a crime? Certainly not--nor do I think it should be. Personally I’d say there’s a better than 50% chance it’s true though.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > My parents called the police, a detective came out and interviewed my sister. And this is what is supposed to happen. Unfortunately, there wasn't a conviction (two of the proverbial 10 guilty free), but your sister has far, far, far more credibility than if she contacted law enforcement in 2040 when one of them was in the public spotlight, or about to be promoted. Everything about her and your parents behavior in that situation is very consistent. > she called The Washington Post, contacted her congressman, and wrote a letter to her senator in July. Right after Kavanaugh was nominated. Exactly. Assume -- just for a minute -- that Ford is lying. At what point would she have accused Kavanaugh? 1982? 1983? 1984? 1985? 1986? 1987? 1988? 1989?...2012? 2013?...Jan 2018? Feb 2018? Mar 2018?...Or July 2018? Obviously that she waited until July 2018 doesn't prove she's wrong. It's just circumstantial. > Especially his explanation of “Renate Alumnius”. Agreed. Or Ford's explanation of a phobia of flying so intense she nearly couldn't leave her hometown.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >And this is what is supposed to happen. Unfortunately, there wasn't a conviction (two of the proverbial 10 guilty free), but your sister has far, far, far more credibility than if she contacted law enforcement in 2040 when one of them was in the public spotlight, or about to be promoted. Everything about her and your parents behavior in that situation is very consistent. Yes she does. That's not the point of my story. The point is that many women today see the end result and they don’t think it’s worth the public shame. 30 years ago in 1982 when a rape investigation could end up with the victim being accused of wanting it because they dressed too slutty. It’s not about what women should do it’s about what they actually do. The evidence shows that they are very likely not to immediately report assaults. >Exactly. Assume -- just for a minute -- that Ford is lying. At what point would she have accused Kavanaugh? 1982? 1983? 1984? 1985? 1986? 1987? 1988? 1989?...2012? 2013?...Jan 2018? Feb 2018? Mar 2018?...Or July 2018? If she was lying. She was lying in 2012. The potential motive of wanting to sink a SCOTUS nominee, didn’t hold in 2012. And since she didn’t do so publicly, the potential publicity motive didn’t hold then either. Her testimony isn’t proof, but it’s strong enough evidence that I would pass on the candidate if I were interviewing him for a job. >Agreed. Or Ford's explanation of a phobia of flying so intense she nearly couldn't leave her hometown. This explanation? ------------- Mitchell: I ask that because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true? Ford: Well, I was willing—I was hoping that they would come to me. But then realized that was an unrealistic request. Mitchell: It would have been a quicker trip for me. [Both laugh.] Ford: Yes. So, that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane. ------------- It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hate flying, but I fly 2 or 3 times a year for work because they pay me a lot of money to do it. I won’t do it if I can avoid it, but with sufficient motivation I will.