Mitchell Tells Senators There's No Case Against Kavanaugh

[Aldebaran]

Why would the police have wanted to ruin a good boy's reputation with such nonsense?

Because the police are there to investigate crimes that are alleged to have happened. Can't help it if you think it's nonsense.

Brock Turner only got six months -- and he's not nearly as affluent as Kavanaugh was back in the day

Bill Cosby had affluence.

 

[jgarden]

If he was guilty, then Ford should have done something about it much longer ago than 36 years. If Kavanaugh hadn't been picked for the Supreme Court, this woman would still be waiting to tell her story. How convenient that she finally found the time to tell it!

Myths about false accusation

Myths: “Lots of women cry rape when they regret sex.”

“Women accuse celebrities and athletes of rape all the time for money and attention.”

“The definition of ‘rape’ is so loose these days – women can claim anything is rape and get away with it.”

“They didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, so she was probably lying.”

“If she was really raped she would have called the police.”

Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes. Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason."

MAAN » Myths about false accusation
****************************************************************
Given that Christine Ford's accusations have a 98% probability of being true, based on FBI statistics, one wonders as to why it is she, and not Brett Kavanaugh, who is having her credibility questioned?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because the police are there to investigate crimes that are alleged to have happened. Can't help it if you think it's nonsense.

Your faith in the investigative powers of law enforcement is reassuring... albeit unexpected.

I must admit, I'm expecting to hear cries of "witch hunt!" and "nothingburger!" out of reflex.

Bill Cosby had affluence.

Which is why he got 3 years instead of 30.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Given that Christine Ford's accusations have a 98% probability of being true, based on FBI statistics, one wonders as to why it is she, and not Brett Kavanaugh, who is having her credibility questioned?

One would have not been paying attention to wonder such a thing. No police report, no recollection of time period or location of alleged event, no recollection of how she got to or from the unknown location of alleged event, no corroboration of identified alleged witnesses to said event. Details matter to establish and maintain credibility. Unless further evidence is presented and corroborated, Ford's allegations are without merit and therefore is in your 2% category.

 

[Aldebaran]

Your faith in the investigative powers of law enforcement is reassuring... albeit unexpected.

I must admit, I'm expecting to hear cries of "witch hunt!" and "nothingburger!" out of reflex.

What I was saying is that something can be investigated (and would seem far more credible) if it's reported right away rather than 36 years later under such questionable circumstances.

Which is why he got 3 years instead of 30.

I guess some people will never be satisfied.

 

[jgarden]

Myths about false accusation

Myths: “Lots of women cry rape when they regret sex.”

“Women accuse celebrities and athletes of rape all the time for money and attention.”

“The definition of ‘rape’ is so loose these days – women can claim anything is rape and get away with it.”

“They didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute, so she was probably lying.”

“If she was really raped she would have called the police.”

Only about 2% of all rape and related sex charges are determined to be false, the same percentage as for other felonies (FBI). So while they do happen, and they are very problematic when they do, people claim that allegations are false far more frequently than they are and far more frequently than for other crimes. Put another way, we are much more likely to disbelieve a woman if she says she was raped than if she says she was robbed, but for no good reason."

MAAN » Myths about false accusation
****************************************************************
Given that Christine Ford's accusations have a 98% probability of being true, based on FBI statistics, one wonders as to why it is she, and not Brett Kavanaugh, who is having her credibility questioned?

 

[jgarden]

One would have not been paying attention to wonder such a thing. No police report, no recollection of time period or location of alleged event, no recollection of how she got to or from the unknown location of alleged event, no corroboration of identified alleged witnesses to said event. Details matter to establish and maintain credibility. Unless further evidence is presented and corroborated, Ford's allegations are without merit and therefore is in your 2% category.

One can always find deficiencies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's story given the traumatic circumstamces, but the fact remains that 98% are based on a true incident!

Kavanaugh, who was given the benefit of the doubt by Republican Senators, has far more to gain by denying that such an incident took place than Christine Ford could ever achieve by coming forward with her account!

The Republicans also have a vested interest in believing/confirming Kavanaugh this close to the 2018 Interims - it provides them with one of the few significant "wins" when faced with declining popularity in the polls, that they can take back to their voter base!

Republicans were already predisposed to side with Kavanaugh even if his accuser had been Mother Teresa!

 

[BigDaddy4]

One can always find deficiencies and inconsistencies in a rape victim's story given the traumatic circumstamces, but the fact remains that 98% are based on a true incident!

The "fact remains" that there is no evidence to suggest Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh was a "true incident". Something may have happened to Ford at some point in her life back then, but there is no evidence of Kavanaugh being involved in it. Therefore, this particular allegation is in the 2% category.

The rest of your post just shows your interest in the case is for political motivation regardless of what the facts are. You are in the "guilty until proven innocent" crowd. May you never be faced with a situation where you are accused of something that has no substantiated evidence, but you are deemed guilty any way.

 

[USincognito]

The "fact remains" that there is no evidence to suggest Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh was a "true incident". Something may have happened to Ford at some point in her life back then, but there is no evidence of Kavanaugh being involved in it. Therefore, this particular allegation is in the 2% category.

Actually, since it cannot be determined if Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Ford or not, this allegation is unresolved. It is neither an exoneration nor a determination that he did it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Actually, since it cannot be determined if Kavanaugh assaulted Dr. Ford or not, this allegation is unresolved. It is neither an exoneration nor a determination that he did it.

I wish more people saw it that way, rather than using slogans like "Believe Women", which indicates a bias based simply on the sex of the accuser. It's no different than favoring or disregarding a person based on skin color. Why the democrats don't mind showing favoritism based on sex while being the ones who most frequently make accusations of racism is beyond me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wish more people saw it that way, rather than using slogans like "Believe Women", which indicates a bias based simply on the sex of the accuser. It's no different than favoring or disregarding a person based on skin color. Why the democrats don't mind showing favoritism based on sex while being the ones who most frequently make accusations of racism is beyond me.

Nevertheless, we almost never doubt a woman that says she's been raped... unless she claims to recognize who did it. Ironic, isn't it?

And I'm more than willing to admit that the issue is unresolved... Dr. Ford is convinced it was Brett, but she might be wrong. Of course, she might be right, as well... and if a SCOTUS nominee might be a rapist, that's usually a good time to check who's next on the list.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nevertheless, we almost never doubt a woman that says she's been raped... unless she claims to recognize who did it. Ironic, isn't it?

The question isn't whether or not Ford was assaulted. We'll never know that. Whether she has proven well enough that it was Kavanaugh who did it is so questionable as to not use it as a reason to deny him a seat on the SCOTUS.

And I'm more than willing to admit that the issue is unresolved... Dr. Ford is convinced it was Brett, but she might be wrong. Of course, she might be right, as well... and if a SCOTUS nominee might be a rapist, that's usually a good time to check who's next on the list.

A person might be a rapist, murderer, etc. based simply on one person's word about it. But passing on a person as a candidate for a position based only on that is not a good way of going about it. Evidence is what is needed, not mere accusations.