I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.
"I don't want to look callous so I'll say I "believe" her, but I'll edit what she's saying selectively so I don't have to actually hold anybody accountable who agrees with me politically."
Going right to "I'm attempting to not look callous" is a disingenuous leap. There are plenty of reasons to believe she isn't lying but she is wrong.
Just so we're on the same page here, other than the IMHO rather fanciful notion that some other dude at the party other than Cavanaugh did it and she somehow mistook her attackers identity as cabinet, what other remotely plausible scenario is there where she is "wrong, but not lying" about being assaulted by Cavanaugh?
What, exactly, makes that idea fanciful? I've had victims of traumatic crimes who have difficulty remembering details of crimes after 30 days, let alone 30 years. And even the victims who claim to remember what happened rarely have the details right after a few months. You're a former prosecutor; I'm sure you saw it all the time too. People's memories are not as good as they think they are. I do not think an unsupported 30+ year old claim is sufficient proof that something happened.
Sorry, I distracted from my underlying question in the way I phrased it. The point is--and I'm addressing this to any other skeptics here, not just you--is there any other reasonably plausible explanation where Ford could be "honestly mistaken" about her accusations against Kavanaugh, other than mistaking the identity of her attacker?
FWIW, the way I break this down is the following: There are logically only two ways Ford could be "mistaken" about her accusations.
1) She was never actually sexually assaulted.
2) Her attacker was someone other than Kavanaugh.
(Again, I invite anyone to offer a rational third option if one can.)
Right off the bat, option 1 is simply untenable. It requires her to be literally psychotic to the point she made up a story of nearly being raped to multiple counselors and other third parties over the course of decades. Any alleged political motivation behind her claims of being assaulted LITERALLY requires a time machine to go back decades and plant her reports to counselors in order to derail Kavanaugh's SCOTUS nomination. This is so implausible that it makes the likelihood of her having been in fact sexually assaulted nearly beyond reasonable doubt.
Then there's the "some other dude did it" (or "SODDI defense" as we called it in the prosecutor's office) theory. While not utterly implausible like option 1, it still just doesn't make sense. First, is there even
one scrap of evidence that indicates Ford realistically could've mis-identified Kavanaugh as her assailant? I've heard none. This is not like Ramirez where the accuser was severely inebriated and admits her memory is sketchy. Why should anyone (at least who isn't thoroughly in the bag for Kavanaugh politically) start off with--not mere questioning or even skepticism--but outright disbelief of her claims?
Secondly, there's good evidence that Ford would've known Kavanaugh was her assailant. The two knew each other. She got (ahem) a really close look at the guy who attacked her. She herself has thoroughly debunked the one other guy Kavanaugh's friend suggested as "the real assailant". She was sober. Her opportunity to observe her assailant was certainly more than momentary. This was not a huge "kegger" with tons of potential suspects present, but rather a small party with only a handful of potential male participants'suspects present. PLUS, Kavanaugh's defense is he has NO idea whatsoever about having ever attended such a party. Thus, in addition to all these things supporting Ford's identification of Kavanaugh, she would've had to completely imagine him
even being at the party for his blanket CYA denial to make any sense.
Oh, plus did I mention there hasn't been any reason offered as to why Ford's ID-ing Kavanaugh should be particularly doubtful in the first place?
OK, now let's apply the #1 sobriquet applied by every Kavanaugh booster. "Memories can fade and be unreliable after decades!" While absolutely true in principle, there's little to indicate that general rubric actually applies in this case.
Let's go back to the only two possible "reasonable mistakes" Ford could've logically made, and consider how "the fading of memory" could--or couldn't--be applicable.
1) She wasn't really sexually assaulted. Again, what "loss of memory" could've realistically fooled her about this? Her reporting the assault for years afterwards indicates she was well aware of what happened to her at the time. Sure, I have little doubt she may not remember minute details for certain. Such as whether her assailant covered her mouth with his left hand or his right, or whether he wore a blue shirt versus a dark green one, or whether he was able to undo 5-6 buttons on her dress vs. only 2-3. But do any of those relatively minor details even remotely
suggest she wasn't actually assaulted?? "Well, if she's not sure which hand was covering her mouth, how do we
really know she's remembering that her mouth was covered during the most terrifying two minutes of her life?"
HOW does someone "forgetting things" make them "imagine" they were pinned down on a bed against their will at a party, had their mouth covered when she tried to scream, while some guy started ripping her clothes off?!? What, as if someone were to bring the entire event back to Ford's mind she'd suddenly slap herself on the forehead and shout. "WAIT a minute! NOW I remember! We were actually just slow dancing the whole time!!" Such delusion is not caused by the loss of memory over time, that's caused by the
addition of false memories. Which again, is like saying sexual assault is awfully traumatic, so maybe the experience caused her to imagine the assault?"
On this point, let's get clear. "Fading memory" should NOT be used by doubters to gently imply she's nuts. It just makes no sense.
2. Someone other than Kavanaugh did it.
Again, how does "fading memory" over time affect her identification of Kavanaugh? This isn't a case where someone picks a stranger out of a lineup years later. and has to reach back in time for details from that night. Every ounce of evidence demonstrates she firmly believed she was assaulted by Kavanaugh at the time it happened and immediately thereafter. How would her "memory fading over time" ever realistically affect that? What, when she discussed it with a counselor even decades later, are we imagining that if her memory were fully refreshed she'd suddenly exclaim: "Wait! This was one of the most traumatic incidents of my life and it tore me apart when it happened. But I just now "remembered" it wasn't Brett Kavanaugh, I totally "forgot" that it was actually Bobby Smith! How did that
ever slip[ my mind....."
Again, the effect of any faded memory wouldn't be to "forget" her attacker was someone other than Kavanaugh. That hypothesis is literally absurd. It would be
added memory that made Kavanaugh her attacker. But this isn't a case where she could possibly "forget" it was someone else. Again, the only other alternative is Ford manufactured Ford decades ago as her attacker because...well, reasons apparently. Or, and here's a thought. She's telling the truth.
So in sum:
1) The concept Ford wasn't really assaulted is thoroughly unbelievable unless one believes she's literally psycho.
2) While it's
theoretically possible Ford misidentified her attacker as Kavanaugh, there's decent circumstantial evidence supporting the accuracy of her identifying Kavanaugh, and no tangible reason apparent to particularly doubt it beyond "well, everyone makes mistakes sometimes, etc."
3) There really isn't any realistic alternative to the above two scenarios as to how Ford could be wrong in her accusing Kavanaugh (and as noted, option 1 simply isn't realistic either).
4) "Memory fading over time" doesn't affect the analysis of either #1 or #2 above. It simply defies rational explanation that Ford might've "forgotten" that what she thought was a life-scaring sexual assault was actually just (e.g.) a flirtatious backrub; or that she would "forget" the man who so traumatized her was actually Billy Smith from 10th grade, and not Brett Kavanaugh as she always believed.
5) The mere random guess that Ford "maybe" somehow possibly misidentified her "actual" assailant as Kavanaugh is a weak speculative reason to disbelieve her, or to believe Kavanaugh's blanket denial he wasn't even ever at such a party. It's certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to incarcerate Kavanaugh and require him to register as a sex offender. However, it certainly carries a preponderance of the evidence. That alone should disqualify him from sitting on the United States Supreme Court and becoming one of the 9 most powerful and respected judges in the world. Yes, even if he "only" did so as a teenager. The fact is the preponderance of evidence demonstrates he's apparently lying about it
now.
The prosecution rests.
Poll
