Believe Accusers!

[Hanafuda]

So? It was a request for an FBI investigation, not a request to review or change his rating within the ABA.

But it wasn't from the ABA as a body, just the current President exceeding his authority (he went rogue). The rating is a statement of the Association's position on whether a judge is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so anything that steps in front of that recommendation (like the letter in question) needs to be voted on. The ABA's rating on Kavanaugh is still that he is "well-qualified" for the SCOTUS.

Ford isn't even the one who brought the allegation to light. It was leaked by someone else because she had told people about it as far back as 20 years prior. Might've been her husband or one of her friends who thought better of putting a sexual predator on the supreme court.

20 years prior? Who are those people, I haven't heard about them. Have they given sworn testimony? The most recent I've heard of Ford describing an event similar to what she's telling now was in 2012, after Kavanaugh's name had been written up in the press as Romney's likely first pick if he were to get elected. That's when it was described to her therapist, though the number and gender of the persons involved changed several times after that, and Kavanaugh specifically was never mentioned to the therapist. Probably - it's not like they're allowing discovery on the therapists' notes or anything, they're just telling you what's in them.

 

[Xzi]

But it wasn't from the ABA as a body, just the current President exceeding his authority (he went rogue). The rating is a statement of the Association's position on whether a judge is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, so anything that steps in front of that recommendation (like the letter in question) needs to be voted on. The ABA's rating on Kavanaugh is still that he is "well-qualified" for the SCOTUS.

Well that's not very reassuring, he should've been downgraded at least a little after the temper tantrum he threw in front of the senate. If that was his interview, that display would've disqualified him for most fast food jobs. And that really has nothing to do with my politics, even Gorsuch handled everything about his nomination in a much better way. As opposed to Kavanaugh who came off as both entitled and unstable.

 

[Hanafuda]

Well that's not very reassuring, he should've been downgraded at least a little after the temper tantrum he threw in front of the senate. If that was his interview, that display would've disqualified him for most fast food jobs. And that really has nothing to do with my politics, even Gorsuch handled everything about his nomination in a much better way.

I'll just say this, strictly hypothetically -- if I were innocent of the things Kavanaugh's been accused of (attempted rape, dick exposure, drugging and gangbanging girls) but unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusations that I had done these things were published in all the newspapers, television news, all over the internet, and my two young daughters were exposed to these vicious smears and lies, forever pulling a dark perv cloud over their perception of their father for the rest of their lives, and again I stress if none of these accusations were actually true but just being spread for political gain despite the harm being caused .... and then you sat me down in front of the very people who had done this to me and my family, I'd probably be beating some fucking skulls in, not just speaking in harsh tones.

 

[Xzi]

20 years prior? Who are those people, I haven't heard about them. Have they given sworn testimony? The most recent I've heard of Ford describing an event similar to what she's telling now was in 2012, after Kavanaugh's name had been written up in the press as Romney's likely first pick if he were to get elected.

Sorry not 20 years, think I was mixing it up with something else, but still three different friends and her husband gave sworn affidavits that she had discussed this with them well prior to Kavanaugh being nominated. Suggesting that Romney maybe considering Kavanaugh is connected to her sharing her story in 2012 is ridiculous.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...sations-with-blasey-ford-about-alleged-attack

Three of professor Christine Blasey Ford’s friends and her husband have given her attorneys detailed letters describing the date, time, place and context of conversations they had with her when she told them about her alleged sexual assault at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

All four of the conversations, according to the writers’ memories, took place before President Donald Trump announced Kavanaugh as his nominee.

I'll just say this, strictly hypothetically -- if I were innocent of the things Kavanaugh's been accused of (attempted rape, dick exposure, drugging and gangbanging girls) but unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusations that I had done these things were published in all the newspapers, television news, all over the internet, and my two young daughters were exposed to these vicious smears and lies, forever pulling a dark perv cloud over their perception of their father for the rest of their lives, and again I stress if none of these accusations were actually true but just being spread for political gain despite the harm being caused .... and then you sat me down in front of the very people who had done this to me and my family, I'd probably be beating some fucking skulls in, not just speaking in harsh tones.

If you're trying to disprove that you're a violent aggressor when drunk, it's probably not the greatest idea to get up in front of the senate and act like a violent aggressor when you're sober. It might make you feel a little better, sure, but it's not going to help win over any hearts and minds.

 

[Joe88]

Anybody would do that especially if they have all those senators on the left calling him a rapist online and on liberal news outlets and saying I believe the accuser even before the hearing took place because of political bias.

At the end of the day nobody had their mind changed, they already knew who they were voting for even before a nominee was even named.

 

[Xzi]

Anybody would do that

Anybody with zero sense of professionalism or self-preservation, sure.

At the end of the day nobody had their mind changed, they already knew who they were voting for even before a nominee was even named.

If nobody's mind was changed they would've voted to confirm yesterday. Ford was far more convincing than Kavanaugh.

 

[Xzi]

Oof, I knew there'd be strings attached with Trump ordering the investigation.

'Report: White House Is Controlling Who FBI Interviews in Kavanaugh Investigation'

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...estigation-limited-by-white-house-report.html

But on Saturday afternoon, NBC News reported that the White House was limiting the scope of the probe to cover only Ford and Ramirez — not Julie Swetnick, the third woman to come forward with allegations of misconduct against Kavanaugh. “Instead of investigating Swetnick’s claims,” according to NBC, “the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity.” NBC also reported that certain other areas of investigation would also be off limits. For instance, the agency cannot request employment records from a supermarket where key witness Mark Judge worked, which might help corroborate Ford’s account of running into him after her alleged assault. And it cannot look into discrepancies between Kavanaugh’s account of only drinking moderately in college and that of at least one classmate, who has said he was lying.

They can't even look into Mark Judge's employment history just because it would probably back Ford? If true this is a sham investigation. What a shitshow this whole thing has been, and all just because Trump needs to shove through Kavanaugh's vote against dual sovereignty so he can pardon without fear of state-level prosecution. Also the whole "believes a president can't do anything criminal" schtick definitely scores Brett a lot of points.

Oh well, even if it looks like the slow fall of an empire being televised to me, the internet always has at least one reaction that makes me die laughing.

(Bit loud)

 

[FAST6191]

If someone I know comes and tells me something shit has happened to them then I will believe something shit has happened to them. If that means I get to drop everything to sit them down, talk, get them out of there... no hesitation there. I will however need evidence if I am to go after someone else. For said people from the first example I will happily lend my investigative and legal abilities too (or direct them such that things are properly investigated... conflict of interest and all that). There may be some base human instinct to protect my tribe but I will fight that in myself, have seen too many things missed and overlooked for me not to do that. Similarly "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent gets punished" is such a fundamental thing for my approach to the world (and hopefully the legal systems of it too) that to stray from that would be sad.

Largely mirrors my thoughts on the matter


For a better example of the base rate fallacy
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/07/terrorists_data.html

Also relevant (the whole thing is good, but the witness part and the payoff for the opening bit too).


I have similarly done things with charities sorting adult survivors of abuse (I was mostly doing tech for them but shop talk and all that is a thing). Massive empathy for people involved, and it is very hard to fake being as broken as some are, but their credibility as witnesses (and witnesses are already incredibly unreliable)... nah. Granted most of that is a somewhat different scenario and slightly different ages but not radically.

As for the supreme court nomination case under discussion. While I imagine his appointment will not lead to the US supreme court steering things in directions I would like (not properly seen his history but if some of the key things brought up are true then yeah) I have not seen enough to make me want to dismiss him, be it emotionally, pragmatically* or legally and the chances of the latter happening without a confession or time machine are so low it is unreal. I have however been out of the loop for the last few days.

*thinking the sort of high responsibility positions where your character, thought processes and more are determined by extensive interviews by people that know how to do it, testing and such.

 

[Deleted User]

Studies have shown approx. 4% of accusations of sexual misconduct tend to be false (margin of error makes it more like 2-8%).

A lot of people try and dismiss 100% of accusations, leading to dividing families in cases of familial harassment, or putting the victim in a situation where they stand accused of lying even though they're statistically much less likely to be lying than telling the truth, as evidenced by recent studies. We should not lean either way, but we should hear out the accuser and at least give them a chance to come forward. Many victims are too traumatized to even do that much, or still scared of their assailant. The reason I think MeToo has been a somewhat decent movement is that it's given people a voice and motivation to come forward with something they may not have otherwise found the courage to. If it led to a spike in false allegations, it's still likely nominal in comparison to the spike in true stories to come of it. 92-98% vs. 2-8%. I'm going to hear an accuser out.

It's hard to produce proof for assaults that took place years ago as well, but this doesn't mean the accuser is lying. How many consensual encounters can you prove happened a decade ago, for instance? While I understand burden of proof and why it's important, things like witnesses play a key role in this kind of accusation, because it's extraordinarily unlikely that there's any physical evidence left of it.

Mate, there were multiple studies done on memory reliability. And to the researchers shock, it was absurdly easy to implant false memories over the course of three days. Espescially with allegations like this, witnesses shouldn't be involved at ALL.

Also, you can't argue with statistics in a court of law. Think how that would go.

Judge: You would like to present your only piece of evidence besides the witness?

Prosecutor: Yessir!

Judge: very well, pull it out.

Prosecutor: This is a graph, found at the scene of the crime! It clearly says there is at least a 92% chance of the defendant being guilty!

Judge:..

Judge: backed by what research? I need to know the parameters.

Prosecutor: uhhh *insert research citation*

Judge: this is assuming that the court is good at determining whether or not a rape claim is false or not. Also, what about the 8%?

Prosecutor: Oh them, psh who cares about them

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, side note, but why is everyone acting like body language is admissible evidence. Quite frankly, if I were in his position I'd be tripping over myself with words and being hyper aggressive and crap. I don't think it's right to assume who's correct without solid evidence.

 

[JiveTheTurkey]

Nobody is trustable in Shitmerica.

Your intelligence is astounding. Please tell us shitmericans more about how to be a great country like yours.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Your intelligence is astounding. Please tell us shitmericans more about how to be a great country like yours.

First you should drop the imperial unit system. /s

PS: joke

But you actually should /s

 

[Tigran]

First you should drop the imperial unit system. /s

PS: joke

But you actually should /s

I'm... not actually going to argue that.

 

[granville]

First you should drop the imperial unit system. /s

PS: joke

But you actually should /s

We SHOULD do that at least. Serious.

 

[JiveTheTurkey]

What? No I like my inches.

 

[AkikoKumagara]

Also, you can't argue with statistics in a court of law. Think how that would go.

That's not at all relevant to what my statement was, nor is it relevant to the topic. The topic is about believing accusers (or rather disbelieving), and I'm presenting the notion that most accusers in this specific scenario are not lying or making things up. Witnesses are generally the only acceptable remaining form of evidence left from these kinds of crime, which is why witness testimony can make or break a case. I shouldn't need to repeat myself, but it's hard to muster up physical evidence of sexual assault, period. Unless it's garnered fairly immediately, at the scene, it's unlikely to exist... especially in cases not involving intercourse. We can't just pretend all assault victims are liars because they don't have physical evidence because a significant portion of sexual assault crimes do not produce physical evidence. This is a fact. You have to hear both sides of a story, as well as witness testimony, and determine who you most believe is telling the truth. And yes, that includes breaking down body language and emotional cues, as well.

To ramble a bit, I was part of a jury selection for this type of crime a few years ago and they made this clear to us. Also, they made it clear that intoxication of either party at the time of the event by no means excuses the actions of the aggressor, if indeed they were committed, as we have laws (in Michigan, where I was at the time, at least) that protect those under the influence. Intoxication could be a factor but is not considered consent.

The key to a decision of guilty or not guilty is the jury's belief beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Nothing else.

 

[orangy57]

I feel the same way, like if Kavanaugh did it, I don't think there's any evidence to actually put him in prison.

i don't want him to be supreme court justice tho, he's a little uhh unstable

 

[Viri]

First you should drop the imperial unit system. /s

PS: joke

But you actually should /s

Never! I actually know F and C. I actually like both.

 

[osaka35]

Okay. So. A lot of folks are saying innocent until proven guilty. Which is true, he shouldn't receive governmental punishment until there's been a hearing and evidence presented.

But what we're talking about is his fitness for a particular position. Our standard is less "guilty or not guilty" and more "just cause to investigate and take a critical look". Folks aren't even entertaining the notion of the possibility. Folks aren't treating it as a the very real, very serious concern it is. which is fairly alarming.

According to the research, it is rare, very rare, for false accusations to occur. And when we break the numbers down into their context, a situation like this (where there's nothing in it for this person to come forward other than being honest) and you go to "pretty much impossible".

So what if she's telling the truth as far as she knows it, but she's misremembering and it was actually someone else? This is possible, the human brain is pretty bad with memories, especially memories created during trauma or high-intensity moments. Given how he's presented himself, though, and how he's reacted, it's probably more likely than not to be him. The more familiar she was with him beforehand also bolsters her testimony.

But even if everything she said was false, which I don't think it is, the way this person has handled themselves and the whole situation is disgraceful and shady. Someone with the integrity of a wet paper bag should not be nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the US for the rest of their life.

 

[Tigran]

I do agree, it's -very- possible that she could be mis-remembering. It happens all the time, and a skilled person can often -make- it happen on someone else.

But I think the biggest thing here... is the response. It's not "I have no idea what she's talking about." or even a goold ol, "What the hell?!"

I also think the sudden "Nope nope nope! Don't look at me! Don't look at me!" is a very... bad vibe. Especially from someone who is trying to become one of the highest seats in the country. Any judge that is worth two shits literally would go. "Hey... I am innocent. This needs to get cleared up right away."

This is one of the cases where the accused is actually saying much more than the accuser is.

Hell.. the man almost broke down in a Job interview... WTH kind of supreme court judge is that? Who does he think he is? Judge Judy?

 

[granville]

This isn't a criminal trial at present and may well never reach that point (even if a miracle occurs and Kavanaugh's nomination is rejected). We're not debating innocent until proven guilty in that sense. The debate is whether Kavanaugh has demonstrated the suitability for a job. In Kavanaugh's case, a position on the Supreme Court.

I do not believe there is any question there. Based on the behavior he demonstrated during the hearing, he should obviously have his nomination removed. He was visibly terrified and non-receptive to the suggestion of an FBI investigation. Lied under oath over even very petty things (which weren't even illegal) such as drinking and sexual conduct. The overall behavior was erratic and EXTREMELY suspicious, the opposite of how one expects an innocent man to act. His nomination should unquestionably be removed.

Imagine how this situation would have played out on a more local level. Take someone applying for work as a teacher in an elementary school. They receive multiple accusations of molested children. On their own, the allegations don't have definitive proof to 100% convict someone. But the accused behaves in a very erratic and suspicious manner when questioned by authorities. They don't want an investigation, a bunch of the answers are blatant lies and overall they behave in a manner exactly opposite to what one expects from an innocent person. After all of this, I do not think any school would be likely to consider this person as a teacher. Regardless of whether the case ever made it to court.

Though I will add that most criminal investigators and courts would unquestionably entertain you as a major suspect if you behaved in such a manner.