
Originally Posted by
Sigfried
No, my approach to this is to look at what I know or have seen and make a tentative judgement based on that. I try not to claim anything for sure. I critique and challenge ideas folks put forth, and I put my own forward. What makes this one especially interesting is exactly the fact there is so much unknown. If we had a semen test or something its a slam dunk, not much to talk about but moral implications. But here, we are dealing with human memroy, 30+ years, drinking, and a lot more. The waters are super murky, that makes it perfect for speculation. And we all have to deal with situations like this, where two people have competing claims and you don't have a celar way to know the truth. How we deal with that, is fascinating to me.
My general impression with drinking is that it's good for not remembering things, but doesn't tend to lead to false memories. So it coulld scramble up her facts, but isn't likely to lead her to invent them. Certainly, it was a drinking party, so I'd assume she drank. I definately don't consider Fords memory an inviolate witness to the truth.
Like I said, I know people who are afraid of flying. They often use it as an excuse to avoid things they don't want to to. When asked, she was clear she didn't want to go to Washington. Can you blame her? She came to realie that was not in the cards so she did what she had to. Seems perfectly reasonable. The counter theorry is that she's all part of a plot by the democrats. I'm sure they are happy to see as many delays as possilbe, and they may have encouraged this kind of thing, but that doesn't make her a liar personally which is what I think matters.
That isn't accurate from what I read. She had told the therapist about the attack, not who had done it and the therapist corroborates that.
She's been adamant about who was in the room so far as I've seen. Judge and Kavenaugh. At the party, she experessed she wasn't exactly sure other than it was a small party and she thinks she remembers at least some of the other guests.
Now, her friend who she thought was there but doesn't remember going or ever meeting Kavenaugh is a big blow to the reliability of her memory for sure. But it's also a mark agaisnt her lying since... it would be pretty bone headed to claim someone was there who you know wasn't. She didn't seem at all like an idiot (there are some who are of course).
That would not be too unusual for me, I have a pretty crappy memory myself for many things. Good for others, its just plain weird sometimes.
Franly, that makes sense to me. Why would she be looking over the receipts of people who were trying to help her out? It seems a strange thing to exect her to know. She contacted her representative about this and they sprang into action, activating the political machine to swoop in and support her. Clearly someone in all that paid for it, but who exactly, not sure how she would know or care to ask. They could just ask the guy, I saw him on a TV clip the other day.
Again, she likely didn't ask. I imagine it went down like: Democrats: Ford, a lot of folks will challenge what you say, we think it would be good for you to take a polygraph test, are you willing to do that? Ford: Yes OK I think I could do that. Democrats: Great, we will get that set up and let you know. Then she shows up, does the test, and that's that.
As normal as this whole thing which is to say no, but in the circumstance, yes. Any time you are about to make a claim against the rich and powerful, you damned well want a lawer. And I'm sure the democrats were more than happy to pay for it since her claim does them a great service in their political struggle.
Sure. Absolutely. Thogh, she's got other things going for her as well. And Kavenaugh has his own problems to deal with, most notibly his rep for heavy drinking and partying and the yearbook that shows his attitude about sex and partying during that time of his life. No one has anything iron clad going on there.
Why is grilling someone needed here? She answered a number of challenging questions. Kavenaugh also faced challenging questions. I thought they were both treated respectfully as witnesses. This was not a trial.
That is not true. Many people have backed up her story and believe in her testiomony. No one can directly corroborate it. That is often true for the victims of sexual assaults. Some have directly contridicted it.
I've probably met a lot of people I don't remember ever meeting. I've had people call be by name and I have no clue who they are. Memory kind of sucks that way. But there are hardly any people I remember meeting that I have in fact never met. That's pretty rare.
Memory can be totaly false, but... it is far more common that you forget something entirely than you invent events that didn't happen.
Bookmarks