Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 203
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    @ mican, while I don't mind giving you the last word, I still answer direct questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    How does considering a claim credible rob someone of their legitimate defense?
    "Do you still beat your wife?" Lets give that accusing question "credibility". Haven't I now limited your defense? You can't deny the question.. because it is given credibility. Go!
    Sure that is an extreme.... but it should exemplify the point that not all accusations are credible in how they are framed.
    More specifically.

    By counting the claim as "credible" as in something to be believed, then it stands as a valid accusation. By taking accusations for which have been made in such a manner as to make impossible the reasonable defense of an honest man, we destroy the meaning of what it means to be "credible" and "valid".

    So, the end is false claim = believable.
    We are supposed to avoid that outcome, because that is what "justice" is.
    It is not as though there was not a circumstance for which the claim could be credible, but now the circumstances make it so that it should not be considered such.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Are you arguing that the FBI will find evidence that he did it even if he didn't do it?
    That is EXACTLY what I argued. You may recall the part where an innocent man has his allabi of being at the gas station, destroyed by time, but an objective observer claims that he saw kavenaugh there,and he remembers this because he politely picked up the shoes Kavenaugh left and returned it to him the next day. A fact which Kavenaugh forgot (due to time).
    Now Kavenaugh would be INCRIMINATED, even though he is innocent.

    I posted a link to "why you shouldn't talk to the police". The basis of your belief, that a proper investigation would not incriminate the innocent, is basically rejected by EVERY lawyer. They do this when they say "don't talk to the police", because in doing so one can only incriminate themselves. Now the link wasn't directed at you, but now you may be interested to check it out, as it is relevant. What I have offered is the summary, but the lawyers lays out MANY circumstance under which innocent people were incriminated by investigations due, faulty memory of the defendant, faulty memory of the cops, faulty memory of unbiased observer. .. The example of when a man had an alibie, offered it to the cops but had an old friend from school sware they saw them at the crime scene (mistakenly so). It is common when the event is recent... much less 30 years later.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'll support it my own way instead of answering your questions. She gave very specific details of the assault itself - being pinned to the bed, having a hand over her mouth and being afraid that she might be accidentally suffocated, escaping and hiding in the bathroom and so on. That is a specific allegation, not a vague one. If she said "well, he did something bad to me", then I would say it's a vague allegation.

    So there's my support that the allegation is not vague but quite detailed.
    A claim is vague when it lacks relevant facts.
    So "at a party" is vague.
    At the party at bobs house on the 12th of may 1978. Is specific.

    Because the claim is the former, it lacks relevant information that would be NECESSARY for a defense of an honest man. Thus it is too vague to be taken as credible.
    here, it by it's nature precludes the defendants ability to offer an alibi.
    O.k. I let that one slip as it wasn't a question.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The odds that she was lying to her therapist is slim. She passed a polygraph test. So it's established that she probably isn't lying. The odds that her memories are false, while not completely zero, is likewise slim (since most memories are not false). So that is support that her claim is credible.
    False.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-scrutiny.html
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question. A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added. "A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination."
    The link goes on to speak of the vagueness of the conditions of the test or the questions asked, and the unwillingness of the accusers lawyers to release the details.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Are we back in court again?
    hear say is gossip, I supported the counter factual to your claim.
    you brought in an "investigator" which if it was the FBI would be operating under that "legal" definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by GOSSIP
    .casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...nt=firefox-b-1

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    And why are you telling me this?
    Because you ignored posts that directly addressed your points and then claimed that they did not occur, even though you are given credit for the point.
    In other words, I offered you the courtesy of addressing your point specifically. Only to have you continue on as though nothing had happened. To then have you make claims that your position was not responded to, is rude, and you should be made aware of it. Now, you want to cast the debate as though your posting last means that your position is unrebutted. Which is even more rude considering you couldn't even be bothered to address the arguments and responses in the first place.
    You should be embarrassed by such a debate tactic, but it is you MO.

    So, repeat all you like that your argument has not been addressed, while ignoring your opponent. But you will get called out on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Seriously, if you are going to exit a debate either sign off with class ("Well, I think I'm done here - until next time") or just stop responding with no explanation. But this "I'm leaving because your debating is bad" is just a crap way to sign off.
    First off, I'm not exiting the debate, I started this thread and I am defending my position. I'll even answer direct question from you.
    If you are going to pretend to be debating, then at least have the common decency to recognize your opponents argument and comments exist. If you are going to call me out for ignoring your argument, when I gave you credit for a good point, and then offered a response to it.. Then you should expect for me to let you know that I am disengaging from you because your debating sucks, and makes your claims to not being responded to or rebutted hollow indeed.


    ------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    How is the accused to defend an accusation without time nor place and 36+- yrs ago? Sure if he could prove he was out of town when she said it happened...but she didn't say when, so how would he defend against this accusation?
    I can not believe that you would find such a claim too vague. There seems to be plenty of information there. She was almost raped, by Kavenaugh. Sounds pretty specific. I mean, she has eliminated every other person at the school, she is practically handing you a conviction. If he wants to defend himself, all he has to do is account for every party he ever went too. If the FBI would only investigate, they could discover what party by simply finding the party they were both at. Bam! Fill in the blank accusation. Only the guilty would object to such a process. /sarcasm.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Sure. But how does what you just said apply in this case?
    Because she hurts the credibility of her case by waiting till the defendant can't defend himself. By waiting till the accusation would do the most political harm. Which introduces the possibility of a political motivation. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that she brought it up vaguely to her therapist to lay the ground work for a future extortion accusation, or her 5 min of fame.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    I thought we weren't dealing with hypothetical examples.
    Yea, as an assertion for what I think actually happened.
    That was an example to demonstraite how your claim was false, that the senate is in a position to find the truth.
    If they were in a reasonable position to discover the truth, then ANY plausibly true event would have to be discoverable. In that they would have to distinguish the real event from the false ones.
    Per my example, there are many plausible events, that the senate simply are not in the position to discover if they were true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    The Senate can simply subpoena folks. They can give testimony. People can provide evidence. Kavanaugh has made the claim that this unequivocally didn't happen. Dr. Ford has said it did. If you treat each others' statements equally, then the Senate can arbitrate. Yes, it's a difficult process and may be fruitless, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
    I think credible claims should be treated this way. But what good is calling the entire school from 1968 to congress? I mean, that is what your going to need to do in order to establish who heard what when from who and try to parse through the gossip chain.. to end up with nothing more than hear say because according to the accuser there were only 3 people in the room.
    that is why you skip claims that are not credible.
    Or have I got the idea of an "investigation" wrong. Was calling the 3 people said to be involved to testify what you were thinking? 2 hours of Q&A with the accuser, Kavenaugh for 2min to say he has no clue what that woman is talking about. Another 2 minutes for the other guy in the room to say the same.. and we are done?

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You're speculating.
    Not quite. Speculating would be an attempt to place a likelihood of one scenario over another. Some are content to do that, but I have been arguing against it and pointing out the flaws in that attempt.
    Like over simplifying the situation to either she is lying or he is lying.
    I argued that they could both be lying, they could both be sim-remebering. it jsut isn't an either or prospect.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    So we shouldn't try?
    Nope. As I argued it isn't a credible claim, and it shouldn't be treated as though it has more credibility than it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    No. They did not say the event never occurred. They say they don't recall the party.
    I think you are confusing who is saying what.
    there were some supporters of hers, that have retracted their initial responses and now say they do not remember the party.
    Earlier I quoted mark Judge (did I get that right) the friend of Kavenaugh that was supposed to be in the room.
    He did indeed say that the event did not occur. not that he doesn't recall the event, or that he doesn't recall the party. That the event didn't occur.

    No one has come out and SPECULATED as to what specific party she is talking about, so no more specific rebuttal can be offered, which is a problem with the claim and it's credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Ford is an eye-witness, which by your definition does not constitute gossip.
    Certainly I agree, but some are appealing to what people at the school "heard" around the time.
    That is what I am referencing. In the thread the two other witnesses other than the woman have already been said to have a motive to lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Justice is not biased. If someone does something wrong, then he deserves to be found out.
    Certainly, where possible. But that doesn't mean all claims are equal. You can't wait 30 years and expect justice in many instances. It is unreasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    Dr. Ford has nothing to gain by coming forward. Kavanaugh has everything to gain by simply denying the incident.
    That is speculation. People are falsely accused in this manner.... yes?
    To serve man.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Oh. Cool. I never heard of a human that did no wrong before
    Do you have any support?
    It's your claim, not mine. So feel free to support that every single Justice on the court has done something "wrong", however that is defined. I was just offering Gorsuch as an example of someone who hadn't had sexual allegations made against him - or that I can recall. I can say the same of Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    -----------
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ual-misconduct

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    venatti replied that he was aware of significant evidence of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, in summary, participating in “the targeting of women” with alcohol or drugs at house parties in the Washington DC-area in the early 1980s “in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to gang rape them”.
    To serve man.

  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because she hurts the credibility of her case by waiting till the defendant can't defend himself. By waiting till the accusation would do the most political harm. Which introduces the possibility of a political motivation. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that she brought it up vaguely to her therapist to lay the ground work for a future extortion accusation, or her 5 min of fame.
    You are speculating.

    Yea, as an assertion for what I think actually happened.
    That was an example to demonstraite how your claim was false, that the senate is in a position to find the truth.
    If they were in a reasonable position to discover the truth, then ANY plausibly true event would have to be discoverable. In that they would have to distinguish the real event from the false ones.
    Per my example, there are many plausible events, that the senate simply are not in the position to discover if they were true.
    Again, you are speculating.

    I think credible claims should be treated this way. But what good is calling the entire school from 1968 to congress? I mean, that is what your going to need to do in order to establish who heard what when from who and try to parse through the gossip chain.. to end up with nothing more than hear say because according to the accuser there were only 3 people in the room.
    You are speculating as to what Congress needs to investigate.
    that is why you skip claims that are not credible.
    You are assuming the claim is not credible. I find it very credible. Now what?
    Or have I got the idea of an "investigation" wrong. Was calling the 3 people said to be involved to testify what you were thinking? 2 hours of Q&A with the accuser, Kavenaugh for 2min to say he has no clue what that woman is talking about. Another 2 minutes for the other guy in the room to say the same.. and we are done?
    An investigation, in my mind, would be what the FBI does for a background check. But yes, the Committee could do their own.

    Not quite. Speculating would be an attempt to place a likelihood of one scenario over another. Some are content to do that, but I have been arguing against it and pointing out the flaws in that attempt.
    Like over simplifying the situation to either she is lying or he is lying.
    I argued that they could both be lying, they could both be sim-remebering. it jsut isn't an either or prospect.
    No, speculating is not putting one scenario over another. The definition of speculating is: form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.


    I think you are confusing who is saying what.
    there were some supporters of hers, that have retracted their initial responses and now say they do not remember the party.
    Earlier I quoted mark Judge (did I get that right) the friend of Kavenaugh that was supposed to be in the room.
    He did indeed say that the event did not occur. not that he doesn't recall the event, or that he doesn't recall the party. That the event didn't occur.
    No, he did not:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Judge
    In fact, I have no memory of the alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner that Dr. Ford describes.
    Certainly, where possible. But that doesn't mean all claims are equal. You can't wait 30 years and expect justice in many instances. It is unreasonable.
    What's unreasonable is getting sexually assaulted and having no recourse. But it is possible for the claims to be evaluated. The FBI can investigate as well as folks testify in front of the committee, under oath.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "Do you still beat your wife?" Lets give that accusing question "credibility". Haven't I now limited your defense? You can't deny the question.. because it is given credibility. Go!
    Sure that is an extreme.... but it should exemplify the point that not all accusations are credible in how they are framed.
    More specifically.

    By counting the claim as "credible" as in something to be believed, then it stands as a valid accusation. By taking accusations for which have been made in such a manner as to make impossible the reasonable defense of an honest man, we destroy the meaning of what it means to be "credible" and "valid".
    I don't see how it's impossible for an honest man to defend himself against a credible accusation. He can present his evidence that supports that he's innocent. It's surely not the case that all of his evidence will be uncritically discarded just because the accusation is considered credible nor is it a given that whoever judges his defense will be unfairly biased against him just because the claim is considered credible.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, the end is false claim = believable.
    We are supposed to avoid that outcome, because that is what "justice" is.
    It is not as though there was not a circumstance for which the claim could be credible, but now the circumstances make it so that it should not be considered such.
    I don't quite understand what you are saying but if a claim meets the criteria of being credible then it should be considered credible regardless of the ramifications. Accuracy is generally a good thing so that which is credible should be considered credible.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is EXACTLY what I argued. You may recall the part where an innocent man has his allabi of being at the gas station, destroyed by time, but an objective observer claims that he saw kavenaugh there,and he remembers this because he politely picked up the shoes Kavenaugh left and returned it to him the next day. A fact which Kavenaugh forgot (due to time).
    Now Kavenaugh would be INCRIMINATED, even though he is innocent.
    Well, introducing that hypothetical supports that it's possible that an investigation will result in more evidence that condemns an innocent man than evidence that exonerates him. But it does not support that it's LIKELY to happen

    Simple logic holds that if a competent investigator investigates something, he is more likely to come back with evidence that supports the truth of the situation instead of come back with evidence that somehow supports the wrong conclusion. Just pointing out that it's possible that the exact opposite of that could possibly happen does not rebut that logic.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I posted a link to "why you shouldn't talk to the police". The basis of your belief, that a proper investigation would not incriminate the innocent, is basically rejected by EVERY lawyer. They do this when they say "don't talk to the police", because in doing so one can only incriminate themselves. Now the link wasn't directed at you, but now you may be interested to check it out, as it is relevant. What I have offered is the summary, but the lawyers lays out MANY circumstance under which innocent people were incriminated by investigations due, faulty memory of the defendant, faulty memory of the cops, faulty memory of unbiased observer. .. The example of when a man had an alibie, offered it to the cops but had an old friend from school sware they saw them at the crime scene (mistakenly so). It is common when the event is recent... much less 30 years later.
    But that's generally because the police have an incentive to arrest and convict people. That is kind of their job.

    But that is not relevant to a task where investigator's job is to learn the unbiased truth as best they can. It's a different motivation.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A claim is vague when it lacks relevant facts.
    Because you say so? You seem to be engaging in a semantic argument here. If that's the way this point is going, I ask that you support your assertion that it's vague with a dictionary definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So "at a party" is vague.
    At the party at bobs house on the 12th of may 1978. Is specific.

    Because the claim is the former, it lacks relevant information that would be NECESSARY for a defense of an honest man. Thus it is too vague to be taken as credible.
    First off, you don't get to decide what facts must be present in order for a claim to not be vague. She gave very specific information in her claim and therefore the claim is not vague. A vague claim of a sexual assault would be a vague recollection of someone groping her and not much else.

    And I see no logical reason to agree with the assertion that a claim but allow an innocent man to defend himself against it in order to be credible. You seem to be inventing criteria for "credible" as it is needed to suit your argument.

    I'm holding that if the claim seems likely to be true, then it's credible.



    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;561451]
    False.[/quote[

    I don't care to debate the polygraph portion so I will restate with that part edited out and this argument does strand until you offer a rebuttals to it.

    The odds that she was lying to her therapist is slim. The odds that her memories are false, while not completely zero, is likewise slim (since most memories are not false). So that is support that her claim is credible.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    hear say is gossip
    No it's not. While it's good that you did provide a dictionary definition in your response, you should abide by it as well and it does not hold that every instance of hearsay is gossip.

    "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people"

    And investigator talking to a witness is not engaging in casual or unconstrained conversation. The discussion will be quite specific and focused and not casual or unconstrained.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you brought in an "investigator" which if it was the FBI would be operating under that "legal" definition.
    There is no legal definition of "credible". I'm saying, as a layperson on a debate site, that since the allegation is credible, investigations should occur so we can learn the truth. While it would be the FBI doing it in this situation, it's not a premise of mine that it need to be them.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Because you ignored posts that directly addressed your points and then claimed that they did not occur, even though you are given credit for the point.
    In other words, I offered you the courtesy of addressing your point specifically. Only to have you continue on as though nothing had happened. To then have you make claims that your position was not responded to, is rude, and you should be made aware of it.
    Well, if you just informed me that it was rude, fair enough. But in your response, you accused me of...

    1. Offering Na-huh answers
    2. Ignoring your arguments (I guess it's only rude when I do it, huh?)
    3. Being factually incorrect on several issues
    4. Being set on justifying an unjust process.

    I find each of those accusations completely unjust and unfair and rude. So I guess the pot got upset about what the kettle did.

    And if we are keeping score on who allegedly is making the most unfair comments about the other person, I think you outdo me by a large margin (and to note - that is my opinion) so I'm not exactly sympathetic to you getting so upset over me doing to you what you've already done to me.

    You do not have the moral high ground here, IMO. I think you are taking offense at me engaging in the kind of behavior that I think you engaged in beforehand. You DID accuse me of ignoring your argument earlier and my response was to just repost my earlier response to show that you were incarceration your accusation and then I moved on.

    But here's the really, really important point about all of this griping. It's completely detrimental to the debate to argue this kind of stuff on the thread. It's really a bad thing to do and we should BOTH stop this immediately because it does not forward the debate and has a serious potential to derail it.

    I mean are we actually going to debate who has been ruder on this thread? Are we going to go back through the threads and find out exactly what was said and what the response was and so on so we can figure out whatever? Of course not. I fully intend to just let the four accusations I listed above slide.

    So if you have a problem with me as a debater that you feel you need to communicate to me, SEND ME A PM. In fact, that will be my consistent response to figure complains. Send me a PM. If it's not worthy sending a PM over, then it should be set aside entirely.

    If you want to gripe at me some more on this thread, I can't stop you. But I will not respond to it on this thread (and might not even read that portion of your response). If I feel that I need to say something to you that does not forward the debate, I will likely send a PM. Other than that, I have no further response. T
    Last edited by mican333; September 24th, 2018 at 11:01 PM.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You are speculating.
    Yes, because ALL the possibility are speculation. That is the point of me offering ALTERNATE possibilities to counter the ones that are offered.
    Speculation was offered that they have a motive to lie, and I countered it with other plausible speculations as a demonstration that her accusation does not separate itself so as to make it credible.
    That is why I rejected a discussion of the speculation she was lying, because we just as well discuss she was mistaken, or a combination of both.

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You are speculating as to what Congress needs to investigate.
    yea.. so?

    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    You are assuming the claim is not credible. I find it very credible. Now what?
    No, I offered a non speculative argument as to why it is not credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by snack
    No, speculating is not putting one scenario over another. The definition of speculating is: form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
    Fair enough.
    My position is that all of the possibilities are speculative at this point with no credible evidence to pick one over the others, except the one which assumes the guilt of the accused out of deference to innocent until proven guilty. A standard you are free to reject, but is not very just.
    As it currently stands the one speculation with the most support, is the one which two witnesses attest to, which is that no such event occurred.
    Given the current state the accusation of a crime 30 years ago, lacks merit to warrant action. It is an empty accusation, devoid of relevant facts, and lacking in validity due to length of time. (per my argument).


    Quote Originally Posted by SNACK
    No, he did not:
    That is exactly what he said when he says he never saw him act like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    On Friday, Judge told the Weekly Standard no such incident took place. “It’s just absolutely nuts,” he said. “I never saw Brett act that way.”
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...ation-alcohol/
    He is not pleading ignorance, he is making a counter factual claim.
    She says he was there and saw it.. he says he never saw such a thing. He called it "nutz".

    Quote Originally Posted by snack
    What's unreasonable is getting sexually assaulted and having no recourse. But it is possible for the claims to be evaluated. The FBI can investigate as well as folks testify in front of the committee, under oath.
    To be sure, she had YEARS to seek legal recourse. Even years more to seek civil compensation. She just doesn't get to wait 30 years and complain about no recourse.
    Such a complaint by her or others on her behalf is simply unreasonable.

    The problem about testifying under oath so far, is that there is not a specific enough accusation to warrant any specific denial. Like them pleading ignorance to the party, because she hasn't said WHAT party.
    Of course they would be ignorant, especially if they are innocent.

    ---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But that is not support that it's likely if an investigation occurs, it will be as likely (or more likely) to come back with incorrect information that incriminates an innocent man as it is to come back with information that supports his innocence.

    You seem to keep forwarding the flawed argument that just because something is possible, it is equally likely to occur as the alternative. So just pointing out the possibility that the FBI might make a serious mistake is not support that they are likely to goof it up if they try to investigate K and somehow find evidence that he's guilty if he is in fact innocent.

    No, if you are going to claim that an investigation into an innocent man is equally or more likely to find false evidence that supports his guilt than correct evidence that supports his innocence, you will need to support that claim.

    Because simple logic holds that if a competent investigator investigates something, he is more likely to come back with evidence that supports the truth of the situation instead of come back with evidence that somehow supports the wrong conclusion.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&t=2s
    This is my support that it is likely. It is SO likely, that every lawyer will tell his client not to get involved in an investigation by talking to the police.

    You have asserted that a "good" investigation will turn up only or mostly evidence that exhonerates the innocent.
    That is false, I gave you an example of why that is the case, but now I will quote from the video.

    8:40 - 1) Speaking to the police can not help your case. What you say to the police that helps your case, is inadmissable as hearsay.
    10:30- 2) If he is guilty, or even innocent they may admit to guilt with not benefit. - 25% of DNA exonerations case, the innocent defandans had made incriminating statements, or delivered out right confessions or plead guilty.
    13:30- 3)innocent client who tells mostly the truth can easily get carried away and say something that will hang him.
    14:40 4) Even if the client is innocent and only tells the truth, he will always give police some information that can be used to help convict him.
    16:10 point of 5th amendment
    17:45 5) Even if client is innocent and only tells the truth and doesn't tell the police anything incriminating, the police can mis remeber something, and he will be convicted.
    19:50 6) Even if the client is innocent (all the above) and the statement is video taped, he can still be convicted if the police don't recall the questions with 100% accuracy.
    21:38 7) Client is given a polygraph, and has an alibie (with his mom) 23:08 is the graphic.. If police are in possesion of false or incorrect evidence. Like a mistaken witness placing them at the scene.

    The point of this evidence, is several fold.
    1) The "investigation" is supposed to include Kavenau testimony. Which is going to be his denial.
    If he is innocent, and takes the 5th, he will be harmed in the public eye.
    2) If he speaks, the investigation is more likely to turn up an instance of #7, a mistaken witness. It is more likely now 30 years later for someone to mis remeber then if the investigation had occured in a timely fashion.
    3) This argument does not rely on the FBI or the investigators making a mistake. It is based on the investigation appealing to the flawed memory of events 30 years ago.
    4) Lost evidence of an innocent man. If he is innocent, and he was not even at the place at the time of the alledged incident, there is less inocense proving evidence to be found.
    This decrease in actual evidence, is more harmful to an innocent man, and thus makes the investigation more likely to turn up only incriminating evidence.
    5) The entire tone of the above linked video, is that an investigation seeks to find evidence of guilt, and thus ALL evidence is cast in the light of guilt. That is the nature of investigations. If it were not, then speaking to the police would not be flatly prohibited.
    6) if 50 people all claim to not know he was there, and 1 person mistakenly claims to have seen him. The 1 will be believed over the 50, because they will be relegated as having nothing to say on the matter.
    The length of time, will produce more people that will claim to not remeber anything.. even if 30 years ago, they would be the witness to clear him.


    to your last statement..
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Because simple logic holds that if a competent investigator investigates something, he is more likely to come back with evidence that supports the truth of the situation instead of come back with evidence that somehow supports the wrong conclusion.
    According to the above, that is expressly not the case. Especially when the investigator is speaking to the suspect.

    I want to stress, we have already had one witness, that claimed she saw him at the party, then retracted the assertion.
    If the accuser had been more specific, and kavanaugh was innocent, and claimed to not be at the party
    and then that woman had been put on the stand and said the same exact thing... he would be convicted in the public eye.

    That is evidence as much as we are going to get, the the people surrounding the event are going to have a rate high enough of mis-remebering things, so as to be harmful and not helpful to his innocence.
    To serve man.

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is my support that it is likely. It is SO likely, that every lawyer will tell his client not to get involved in an investigation by talking to the police.

    You have asserted that a "good" investigation will turn up only or mostly evidence that exhonerates the innocent.
    I don't disagree with what is being said about not talking to the police. But that does not apply to a situation where the investigator is tasked with finding out the unbiased truth of the matter.

    The police have a motivation to do what they can to secure an arrest and make sure that if one is suspected of a crime, to convict him, including not informing the person that they are talking to that he/she is a suspect. So if a policeman starts talking to you, you might be a suspect without being aware of it and the policeman might be doing what he can to make you look guilty which is why he might be asking certain questions. So yes, don't talk to the police even if you did nothing wrong.

    And that is an entirely different situation with an organization or individual being tasked to find out the truth of an accusation. They do not have a motivation to focus on what makes the person look guilty but instead have a motivation to learn the truth. And if they are competent, they are more likely to find out that an innocent man is innocent than find false information that points to a "false positive".

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point of this evidence, is several fold.
    1) The "investigation" is supposed to include Kavenau testimony. Which is going to be his denial.
    If he is innocent, and takes the 5th, he will be harmed in the public eye.
    He can't take the fifth as this is not a criminal prosecution. It's a job interview. And in a job interview, the applicant is free to not answer a question but it's not exactly a miscarriage of justice if the prospective employer becomes less inclined to hire the person because he's not answering questions that are asked of him.

    Like I said, the primary concern is that we hire the right guy for the job. If the candidate is evasive in his questioning, it's not at all unfair to hold that against him and deny him the job. He is not entitled to the job and it's not unfair to not hire him for it if we have good reason to not hire him.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) If he speaks, the investigation is more likely to turn up an instance of #7, a mistaken witness. It is more likely now 30 years later for someone to mis remeber then if the investigation had occured in a timely fashion.
    Yes, it's RELATIVELY more likely that someone will misremember events from 30 years ago than misremember events that occurred much more recently. But it is not supported that such a witness is more likely to give inaccurate information about an even from the past than they are to give accurate information.

    I mean if I were to write down everything from my college years that I remember from decades ago, there will probably be some flaws. But overall, there will be more accurate things written down than inaccurate things. So odds are that any past remembered event will be accurately relayed than inaccurately relayed. So regarding any given remembered event from the past, one is more likely to give an accurate account than an account that directly contradicts what really happened.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    According to the above, that is expressly not the case.
    What's above is not an example of a competent investigator seeking the truth and therefore does not rebut my statement. It's an example of a police officer trying his best to make an arrest and conviction of someone (where evidence of guilt will be much more sought than evidence of innocence).

    So I'm going to repeat my point (just to ensure that it is in this post since I don't think it's been rebutted).

    Because simple logic holds that if a competent investigator investigates something, he is more likely to come back with evidence that supports the truth of the situation instead of come back with evidence that somehow supports the wrong conclusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I want to stress, we have already had one witness, that claimed she saw him at the party, then retracted the assertion.
    If the accuser had been more specific, and kavanaugh was innocent, and claimed to not be at the party
    and then that woman had been put on the stand and said the same exact thing... he would be convicted in the public eye.
    But then the reality is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. She is not going to falsely testify anything and if she did falsely testify, she would be in dire legal jeopardy.

    Again, you seem to throwing out something that could possibly happen to support that that kind of thing is likely to happen, which of course is a flawed position. So this scenario being possible does not rebut that competent investigator looking for the truth regarding an innocent man is more likely to come back with correct evidence than incorrect evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is evidence as much as we are going to get, the the people surrounding the event are going to have a rate high enough of mis-remebering things, so as to be harmful and not helpful to his innocence.
    It's only harmful if they misremember more than they accurately remember things. If the investigators come back with 9 pieces of correct evidence and 1 piece of incorrect evidence, then overall the evidence found will be helpful to an innocent man. If you are going to argue that it's likely that they will come back with more incorrect evidence than correct evidence, please support that (which requires more than raising the mere possibility that it might happen).

    And also let's not forget that competent investigators have a good chance at recognizing bad information as bad and therefore not bring it back for consideration. So even if they got an equal amount of good information and bad information, the good information is more likely to be presented than the bad information.
    Last edited by mican333; September 25th, 2018 at 09:21 AM.

  8. Likes snackboy liked this post
  9. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I don't disagree with what is being said about not talking to the police. But that does not apply to a situation where the investigator is tasked with finding out the unbiased truth of the matter.

    The police have a motivation to do what they can to secure an arrest and make sure that if one is suspected of a crime, to convict him, including not informing the person that they are talking to that he/she is a suspect. So if a policeman starts talking to you, you might be a suspect without being aware of it and the policeman might be doing what he can to make you look guilty which is why he might be asking certain questions. So yes, don't talk to the police even if you did nothing wrong.

    And that is an entirely different situation with an organization or individual being tasked to find out the truth of an accusation. They do not have a motivation to focus on what makes the person look guilty but instead have a motivation to learn the truth. And if they are competent, they are more likely to find out that an innocent man is innocent than find false information that points to a "false positive".
    So the point was to support that "investigations" are not inherently finders of only truth. Investigations are in fact so good at missing the truth that it is basic common practice for lawyers to demand their clients to thwart investigative efforts in the only legal way they can.
    Which is to not talk to investigators. This includes the IRS, the FBI, or the police.

    Now, I hear the objection you are raising. That this is different, the motivation of the investigators are different. But I have to disagree and point out that, that is not consistent with what you have said so far.
    It was your point that the investigators (congress) has no burden to start with the assumption of innocence. So they are not out to find objecive facts inherently, but reasons to not hire the person.
    Second, I object to the assertion which is implied, that typical criminal investigations are doing anything other than collecting "facts".

    So for these two reasons I disagree that there is a relevant distinction to be made.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He can't take the fifth as this is not a criminal prosecution. It's a job interview. And in a job interview, the applicant is free to not answer a question but it's not exactly a miscarriage of justice if the prospective employer becomes less inclined to hire the person because he's not answering questions that are asked of him.

    Like I said, the primary concern is that we hire the right guy for the job. If the candidate is evasive in his questioning, it's not at all unfair to hold that against him and deny him the job. He is not entitled to the job and it's not unfair to not hire him for it if we have good reason to not hire him.
    If what he says could be used against him in a court of law to convict him of a crime, he has the right to plead the fifth. It would be horrible for his job prospect.. but never the less he could.
    It also seems clear that the dems want him to testify on this matter in order to trap him in the crime of perjury some how. So there must be some threat of incriminating himself.. and thus he has the right to take the fifth.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Yes, it's RELATIVELY more likely that someone will misremember events from 30 years ago than misremember events that occurred much more recently. But it is not supported that such a witness is more likely to give inaccurate information about an even from the past than they are to give accurate information.

    I mean if I were to write down everything from my college years that I remember from decades ago, there will probably be some flaws. But overall, there will be more accurate things written down than inaccurate things. So odds are that any past remembered event will be accurately relayed than inaccurately relayed. So regarding any given remembered event from the past, one is more likely to give an accurate account than an account that directly contradicts what really happened.
    So, the point I was making is that it only takes 1 to mis-remember in order to incriminate him. the longer time makes that more likely then not that it will happen, and in fact we ALREADY have an example of someone mis remembering in a way that would incriminate him.
    I pointed out the example earlier. Let me know if the referance is unclear.
    This is proof that my point is correct, it IS more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later, and that has nearly happened already is the proof.

    The problem is not the accurate info. the problem, is the inability to differentiate between accurate and inacurate, and the clear tendancy to take the most damning parts and apply them to the defendant. Sure the "investigators" may not do that.. but the senate will.
    I think I have made this point .. very.. very clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What's above is not an example of a competent investigator seeking the truth and therefore does not rebut my statement.
    How so? New info if you didn't watch the whole video.. but A leading investigator spoke after the man in the link, he was a professional interegator. IE he is better at asking questions then the senators that will be "grilling" the witnesses.
    I see no justification to say they are not examples of competent investigators. Instead, this seems to be EXACTLY what competent investigators do. Investigators for the FBI do it, for the IRS and for the police.
    So you are going to have to support that those organaziation are incopotent investigators, or that the local police are not looking for truth.

    Yes, you have pointed out a motive of the police to find a crime and get convictions, but they are not using anything other than "facts" they discover to achieve those ends, and are punished if they use anything other than facts on purpose.
    So I see your objection, and I have offered several lines of response to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then the reality is that IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. She is not going to falsely testify anything and if she did falsely testify, she would be in dire legal jeopardy.

    Again, you seem to throwing out something that could possibly happen to support that that kind of thing is likely to happen, which of course is a flawed position. So this scenario being possible does not rebut that competent investigator looking for the truth regarding an innocent man is more likely to come back with correct evidence than incorrect evidence.
    It didn't happen under oath, but then neither has any accusation.
    So your not applying a even measure here. What that event does support is that it is more likely that SOMEONE will mis-remember. And they won't be under oath when the speak to investigators.
    That woman could have easily spoken first to an investigator instead of on FB.
    So, it did happen in a way that is support for my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    It's only harmful if they misremember more than they accurately remember things. If the investigators come back with 9 pieces of correct evidence and 1 piece of incorrect evidence, then overall the evidence found will be helpful to an innocent man. If you are going to argue that it's likely that they will come back with more incorrect evidence than correct evidence, please support that (which requires more than raising the mere possibility that it might happen).

    And also let's not forget that competent investigators have a good chance at recognizing bad information as bad and therefore not bring it back for consideration. So even if they got an equal amount of good information and bad information, the good information is more likely to be presented than the bad information.
    That is not true.
    Because the 9 pieces of correct info will be like.
    "I don't remeber him at X party" or "I remeber he wasn't there"
    and the one mistaken one will be "I remember he was at X party, I saw him".
    Then it will be the 1 that hangs him, as her claim will be substaintiated by the one wrong guy. .. and that is all it takes.

    The problem is your counting the deck as being stacked even, and it is not. Wrongful evidence is more harmful then truthful evidence. See the example in the video of a man with an alibie being mistakenly identified at a location he said he wasn't at. He even had a witness (his mom)..
    So your opperating under a false set of assumptions, and I think I have supported that they are false with both legal examples, and format examples, as well as current occurances of what I pretected will happen as happening (namely people mis-remebering in a way that incriminates).


    -----------------Question----------

    Short:

    You are a police sergeant and a man walks in and claims that he was picked up by the KKK and yelled at before being released. He has no corroborating details or witnesses and there are no reports of KKK activity in your neighborhood. Is that a credible claim?


    Long:

    Let's say you are a police sergeant. You are busy and overwhelmed with police reports. YOu have to prioritize what you investigate. And since we are all adults we can admit that the world isn't perfect that we have to make adult assessments on reliability, everyone here has made allusions to that. Ok, a guy walks in and recites the following story:

    Sometime earlier today a dog stole my wallet. What? In fact it was that dog over there! He was brought in by three people, one of whom is a longtime friend.

    You ask him; "when did the dog steal your wallet? He answers: I'm not sure, this morning? Or maybe this afternoon?

    You ask him; "where did the event happen? He answers: Uhh I think it was in Virginia, tidewater maybe? Could have been Roanoke.

    You look to his friend, who shakes his head and says "I was with him for most of the day, and nothing like that occurred."

    You look at the other people in his group and ask "did you see this?" They say no, and we also that dog lives in our neighborhood and can't reach into pockets.

    You ask the owner, can he do that? And the owner says "I've never seen him do anything remotely like taking something from a human."

    Is that a credible report? Are you going to prioritize investigation assets over a robbery or assault?
    To serve man.

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the point was to support that "investigations" are not inherently finders of only truth. Investigations are in fact so good at missing the truth that it is basic common practice for lawyers to demand their clients to thwart investigative efforts in the only legal way they can.
    Which is to not talk to investigators. This includes the IRS, the FBI, or the police.
    And I assume you are referring to police investigations.

    What goes for police investigations likely does not apply to an unbiased fact-finding nvestigation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Now, I hear the objection you are raising. That this is different, the motivation of the investigators are different. But I have to disagree and point out that, that is not consistent with what you have said so far.
    It was your point that the investigators (congress) has no burden to start with the assumption of innocence. So they are not out to find objecive facts inherently, but reasons to not hire the person.
    But then it's not the Senate that is doing the investigating. The ones who ARE doing the investigating do not start with a presumption of innocence nor a presumption of guilt but are just seeking the unbiased facts.

    So it is indeed different than a police investigation and therefore what applies to a police investigation does not apply to this kind of investigation.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If what he says could be used against him in a court of law to convict him of a crime, he has the right to plead the fifth. It would be horrible for his job prospect.. but never the less he could.
    He can't plead the fifth if he could not possibly incriminate himself by answering. Since he cannot be prosecuted for assaulting Ford even if he confessed that he did it due to the statute of limitations, there's no way that he can incriminate himself by answer a question about it. But yes, he can just refuse to answer a question but he has no reason to fear self-incrimination if he answers.

    And I'm not sure what this point is about.

    BTW, I certainly don't think being "fair" to Kavanaugh is the primary concern here. In fact, we should be no more fair to him than to his accuser in this particular matter. And we certainly are not operating on the assumption that he is innocent (nor that he is guilty either). We have to allow for either to be true and do what we can to learn the truth of the matter. And Kavanagh does not have to take ANY of it if he doesn't want to (unlike someone who is a suspect in a crime). He can walk away any time he wants. And if he choses to stick around and X is one of the things that he must endure to stick around, then it's not inherently unfair for X to happen.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, the point I was making is that it only takes 1 to mis-remember in order to incriminate him. the longer time makes that more likely then not that it will happen, and in fact we ALREADY have an example of someone mis remembering in a way that would incriminate him.
    I pointed out the example earlier. Let me know if the referance is unclear.
    This is proof that my point is correct, it IS more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later, and that has nearly happened already is the proof.
    What I am unclear of is your last statement. What do you mean by "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later"? "More likely" compares two things and therefore if A is more likely than B, then we must know what B is.

    So are you saying that one is more "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than correctly provide accurate evidence that will help his defense"? If so, please support that this is so. Just because it can happen does not mean that it is likely to happen.

    Or do you mean "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than she would be if she was recalling an event that occurred much easier in time"? If so, I agree with that. But that does not support that she is more likely to get the information so wrong that she will inadvertantlhy harm his case. As I supported earlier, odds are any recalled event from one's past will be generally accurate.

    So either way, this does not support that the investigation is likely to do more harm than good for the innocent.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is not the accurate info. the problem, is the inability to differentiate between accurate and inacurate, and the clear tendancy to take the most damning parts and apply them to the defendant. Sure the "investigators" may not do that.. but the senate will.
    I think I have made this point .. very.. very clear.
    But it's nonsense IMO. There already was an investigation by the FBI into Kavanaugh and as we can see, it did not amount to some disaster because we can't trust the Senate with unbiased facts. If we can trust them to not go nuts with the information they already received, I see no logical reason to not trust them with accurate information from another investigation.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    How so? New info if you didn't watch the whole video.. but A leading investigator spoke after the man in the link, he was a professional interegator. IE he is better at asking questions then the senators that will be "grilling" the witnesses.
    I see no justification to say they are not examples of competent investigators. Instead, this seems to be EXACTLY what competent investigators do. Investigators for the FBI do it, for the IRS and for the police.
    So you are going to have to support that those organaziation are incopotent investigators, or that the local police are not looking for truth.

    Yes, you have pointed out a motive of the police to find a crime and get convictions, but they are not using anything other than "facts" they discover to achieve those ends, and are punished if they use anything other than facts on purpose.
    But they ARE NOT punished for focusing on gathering facts that will condemn the suspect while not really bothering to look for facts that will exonerate the suspect. That kind of investigation is obviously a very biased investigation when it comes to finding facts that will condemn versus facts that will exonerate.

    This why using criminal investigation to cast doubt on unbiased investigation is flawed. Pretty much everything you are pointing out about criminal investigation does not apply to unbiased investigations.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It didn't happen under oath, but then neither has any accusation.
    So your not applying a even measure here. What that event does support is that it is more likely that SOMEONE will mis-remember.
    Again, more likely than what?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And they won't be under oath when the speak to investigators.
    That woman could have easily spoken first to an investigator instead of on FB.
    So, it did happen in a way that is support for my point.
    It does not support your point. Pointing out that something COULD happen does not support that its more likely to happen than not.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not true.
    Because the 9 pieces of correct info will be like.
    "I don't remeber him at X party" or "I remeber he wasn't there"
    and the one mistaken one will be "I remember he was at X party, I saw him".
    Then it will be the 1 that hangs him, as her claim will be substaintiated by the one wrong guy. .. and that is all it takes.
    how do you know that all the information that would help exonerate him would be so weak?

    How do you know that they won't get information like:
    "She was really angry at him for pulling a mean prank and said that she was going to ruin his life"
    "She accused four other guys of assaulting her and it was proven that she was lying about most of them"
    "Here's a picture of them hanging out the Summer after his graduation and therefore after the alleged attack. You'd think if he attacked her, she wouldn't be smiling with her arm on his shoulder."

    Obviously you don't know what kind of information might be found so the argument that the information that could help him will be really weak is not supported.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is your counting the deck as being stacked even, and it is not. Wrongful evidence is more harmful then truthful evidence. See the example in the video of a man with an alibie being mistakenly identified at a location he said he wasn't at. He even had a witness (his mom)..
    Once again, you are using criminal investigation where it's not relevant. It is really muddying the issue so I would like you to stop using that as an example.



    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;561461]So your opperating under a false set of assumptions, and I think I have supported that they are false with both legal examples, and format examples, as well as current occurances of what I pretected will happen as happening (namely people mis-remebering in a way that incriminates).

    And I think I have rebutted every point you have made.


    -----------------Question----------


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Short:

    You are a police sergeant and a man walks in and claims that he was picked up by the KKK and yelled at before being released. He has no corroborating details or witnesses and there are no reports of KKK activity in your neighborhood. Is that a credible claim?
    No. And not coincidentally, that is not Ford's claim and there are significant differences between the two which is why her claim is credible and your example is not.

    Again, a therapist took notes about it six years ago. The notion that she was lying to her therapist is unlikely and therefore one must conclude that she was probably telling the truth. "Probably true" crosses the line into credible.
    Last edited by mican333; September 26th, 2018 at 07:22 AM.

  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,266
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    This nomination has become a complete circus. It is kinda sad. Kinda sick. Kinda amusing. None of it is just or about justice. I just want to make a few observations/comments.

    1) I keep hearing the word, "credible" being bantered about. What makes a person or a statement credible? I don't know any of the people involved. We do know, from their private lives, they all have reasons to be truthful. They all have reasons to lie. But, we should not be talking about credible people. This is the game Democrats are playing. Dr. Ford is credible because she is a woman and, therefore, her story is credible. To a point, this is true. Someone tells me a story and if I know nothing else, I will assume, if it is a reasonable story, that the story is credible. Not true, of course, but credible. If I tell a group of co-workers that I was mugged a few years ago, I've told a credible story. Its just that. A credible story. Not true. Not false. Of no consequence. Now, let's suppose I add some detail. I was mugged a couple of years ago at a work event. Ok. Added detail. Still a credible story. It could have happened. Now, I tell them, not only was I mugged two years ago at a work party, but two of my co-workers did it and several others were around when it happened. Well, now my credible story has a reason to be challenged. And once challenged the two co-workers I identified claimed it wasn't them. Furthermore, they claimed they weren't even at that work event. Heck, one even has a calendar showing he was somewhere else. Suddenly, my story isn't very credible is it? What if I say, well.... it was maybe 2 or possibly 2 1/2 years ago and I'm not sure which event the mugging occurred at? At this point, the story isn't credible. It certainly is not provable. If it cannot be proven, then it isn't a story which has any relevance. It is nothing more than an unsubstantiated accusation. That is how justice works in America. The accused gets to poke holes at your claim and the actual supposed credibility of the accuser isn't very important other than determining whether to give the initial claim credibility.

    2) People insist that the FBI must investigate. Investigate what? Investigate a 35 year old claim which lacks basic information such as date and location? Should the FBI interrogate everyone who attended his high school between the years he attended there? And for what? There is no crime. How do I know that? Because the statute of limitations on such a thing, if a crime had occurred ran out around 30 years ago. Why do we have statute of limitations anyhow? It seems, as a society, we have determined that accusations made too long after the alleged incident cannot be properly defended against. It is unfair to the accused to have defend against an accusation long past when most memories and possible pieces of exonerating evidence have ceased to exist. Furthermore, the FBI does not make it a point to investigate crimes outside its jurisdiction. They just don't do that. They could, but it'd be highly irregular and pointless.

    3) So, the more cynical here would read my last sentence would simply say, if it'd come to nothing and exonerate Cavanaugh, then what is there to lose? Just do it and make everyone happy. Of course, this overlooks the large political white elephant. This whole charade has been a political ploy by Democrats to block a GOP nomination in the hopes that they'll control the Senate after the next election. So, for them, waiting looks great and they could not care less about the truth or serving justice. It is like when Schumer said he'd already made up his mind to vote no on Cavanaugh, but there needed to be more information on the nominee in order to make a good decision. Uh... ok, but you already made your decision. This is just a game for them. Another Bork. Another Thomas. This is a Democratic strategy and they are seeking revenge for Garland's failed nomination which was 100% political, but at least the GOP didn't try to ruin his reputation.

    4) There are now 3 accusations out in the public sphere. And there will be an instinct to sum them up and say, "See!" there is a pattern here. Just like all those other bad and evil men who we believed until we stopped believing. However, let's look at each claim one by one and something starkly similar does indeed seem to be occurring here. In short, each claim is woefully short on specifics and tends to place Kavanaugh in places where it is not clear he has been.
    -- In the first accusation, Dr. Ford named four people as being present at the party. They have all denied that the party existed. And Dr. Ford's lifelong friend, a person named as being at the party, claims she has never been at a party with Kavanaugh and has never met him. Ok.... I know, Dr. Ford's lawyers have turned this into a reason we should believe Ford because it just shows how traumatic the experience was for her. However, it also shows Dr Ford has created an event no one else remembers but her.
    -- In the second accusation, a woman said Kavanaugh flashed his penis at a Yale party. Again, no one could/would corroborate the story. Except for the New Yorker, no major media outlet will put the story out. Another incredible story.
    -- A third person has come out with her own high school tales involving, of all things, gang rape. However, it should be noted she never claimed Kavanaugh raped her. She only claimed he was there and in other parties he spiked the punch. Apparently, to facilitate a gang rape of which no one has been charged and of which no one can corroborate. I believe she has also insinuated that he participated in the gang rape of others. Again, not a singe girl pressed charges. Not a single woman has come out and said that Mr. K. raped them. Details of the supposed parties? Well, Mr. K. claims he does not know the accuser. She claims there are other witnesses. I find the whole thing beyond credulity.

    None of these stories, about a 17, 18 year old kid are credible in the least. Certainly, they aren't credible in a way that would allow us to claim justice was served by allowing them to stick to Mr. Kavanaugh's professional reputation. Is this the new normal? Boys who spike a punch bowl at a party may be accused, 40 years later, of facilitating rape? Good god man. I never thought I'd say this, but I kinda wish my son was gay. At least he would not have to deal with the new incarnation of Salem Witch Trials where men are accused by women and, by denial, implicate themselves.

    Here is what I do believe about these women. I believe the second accusation is a complete fabrication. She took her original claim down from Twitter and won't comment further. The first claim I believe. I mean, I believe she was in a situation with someone and she felt like it went too far, even possibly sexually assaulted. However, I also believe she is politically motivated and decided to take a situation which didn't have a named perpetrator and use Mr. K. The third case, well, we will see how it plays out. If she has other witness which corroborate her story, then I think we finally have a charge that sticks in as much as disqualifying him. Still outside the statute of limitations so no criminal charges. Still, probably beyond what is politically acceptable for his nomination to proceed. And, yes, at this point, it is all political. The Dems have made a political calculus to sit on info for 2 months and release it in the 11th hour. The GOP will have to make a political calculus to determine where the line is before nomination is no longer possible.

    I'm going to make another statement here. Nominations are over. Good luck next Democratic president trying to nominate for SCOTUS unless you have an iron clad majority in the Senate. Nominations will go down party line votes and I cannot imagine the cobwebs people are going to dust off to hurt each and every nominee's reputation. It should be noted, that at some point, the Senate didn't even hold public hearings on nominees. They went through the person's records and voted based on his qualifications. Then, tv and the desire of Senator's to ham it up for the audience and now the whole thing is a cluster****.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I assume you are referring to police investigations.

    What goes for police investigations likely does not apply to an unbiased fact-finding nvestigation.
    I don't see why not. I don't see how a police investigtion would turn up different facts, or how those facts will be used different by the democrats in the senate, then a prosicuter in a courthouse.
    Do you really think that when kavanuah takes the stand, he will be treated different by Dems then the police with a suspect to a crime? Other than the dems won't be trained enough to do as good of a job getting "the truth" out of a person?

    I think there is a bit of misunderstanding about how my objection applies, and you really focus in on it in a minute with one of your questions.. so see below.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then it's not the Senate that is doing the investigating. The ones who ARE doing the investigating do not start with a presumption of innocence nor a presumption of guilt but are just seeking the unbiased facts.

    So it is indeed different than a police investigation and therefore what applies to a police investigation does not apply to this kind of investigation.
    Again, I fail to see how that produces different "facts". Especially in the area that I have been placing my objection.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    He can't plead the fifth if he could not possibly incriminate himself by answering. Since he cannot be prosecuted for assaulting Ford even if he confessed that he did it due to the statute of limitations, there's no way that he can incriminate himself by answer a question about it. But yes, he can just refuse to answer a question but he has no reason to fear self-incrimination if he answers.

    And I'm not sure what this point is about.

    BTW, I certainly don't think being "fair" to Kavanaugh is the primary concern here. In fact, we should be no more fair to him than to his accuser in this particular matter. And we certainly are not operating on the assumption that he is innocent (nor that he is guilty either). We have to allow for either to be true and do what we can to learn the truth of the matter. And Kavanagh does not have to take ANY of it if he doesn't want to (unlike someone who is a suspect in a crime). He can walk away any time he wants. And if he choses to stick around and X is one of the things that he must endure to stick around, then it's not inherently unfair for X to happen.
    This is all about a principle, we disagree on it, but it isn't really relevant. he isn't going to plead the fifth.
    I think he could, you think he can't.. doesn't matter. So I will skip it.
    I would like to note that other gov employees have plead the fifth when they were called in to describe their job, and what they did in their job capacity.
    So i don't see a distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What I am unclear of is your last statement. What do you mean by "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later"? "More likely" compares two things and therefore if A is more likely than B, then we must know what B is.

    So are you saying that one is more "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than correctly provide accurate evidence that will help his defense"? If so, please support that this is so. Just because it can happen does not mean that it is likely to happen.

    Or do you mean "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than she would be if she was recalling an event that occurred much easier in time"? If so, I agree with that. But that does not support that she is more likely to get the information so wrong that she will inadvertantlhy harm his case. As I supported earlier, odds are any recalled event from one's past will be generally accurate.

    So either way, this does not support that the investigation is likely to do more harm than good for the innocent.
    This is what I was refering to above.
    the answer is yes.. both.
    Starting with where we agree.
    1) "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than she would be if she was recalling an event that occurred much easier in time"
    Now you diagree that that it will necissarily harm his case.
    To this, when they ask people if they were at the party, it is now more likely that someone will mis-remember him in a place that he was not, and that will be incriminating to him, because the dems will treat this "evidence" as though he is a liar.
    That will hurt his case to the senate for his job. This is where your argument sort of turn up itself. You have argued a lower bar of evidence and expecations. which means that more things will hurt his case to be supreme court Justice.
    No it wouldn't prove him guilty of a crime.. but it will do the more easily accomplished harm his chances at the job.

    2) "So are you saying that one is more "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than correctly provide accurate evidence that will help his defense"? If so, please support that this is so. Just because it can happen does not mean that it is likely to happen."
    In this, I don't mean the specific people. As in Bob is not more likely to mis-remember something that will more likely incriminate him.
    But I do mean that the group is more likely to produce someone that will hurt an innocent man. My evidence for this is that someone already has. The lady who withdrew her claim.

    As it has already happened, I don't have to argue probability, I have actuality on my side. someone actually did mis-remeber in such a way as to harm his case. He may not be judge because that womans withdrawn testimony convinced a senator not to vote for him.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    So either way, this does not support that the investigation is likely to do more harm than good for the innocent.
    So here are the options.
    1) the investigation finds a smoking gun to exhonerate him. Such as video of another man trying to rape the girl, which produces an "OMG .. it's that guy! now I remeber.. so sorry everyone.. but now I get justice".
    To which I think this is very unlikely. #1, because time has destroyed much of the exhonerating evidence. Like clear memories of everyone at the party, the victim, the defendant etc.
    2) The investigation finds nothing, nothing as in no one remebers anything, no one is willing to speak up, or speculate or anything.
    This is very unlikely, because we already have people who have hastely spoken out, and only withdrew their claims because they got so many media calls. we also have someone on the other side denying the event occured.
    So someone is going to say something.
    3) You get some mix of people speculating in ways that are both helpful and harmful to Kavenaugh. Just someone saying "yea I saw them together at a party" is damaging to Kavanaugh.
    This I think is pretty likely. Again, it is actually certain in that we do have people who have said things like this on both sides already. So there is no reason to think the investigation will turn up anything different.

    So.. Have I missed a possibility? Are any of these oversimplified and need a new category?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it's nonsense IMO. There already was an investigation by the FBI into Kavanaugh and as we can see, it did not amount to some disaster because we can't trust the Senate with unbiased facts. If we can trust them to not go nuts with the information they already received, I see no logical reason to not trust them with accurate information from another investigation.
    The reason is because benighn "facts" of previous findings such as "He was at a party" now take on a possibity of being twisted into a sentence to hang him.
    Also, the kind of investigation has changed. The next one will be about a crime, and will be criminal in nature. Before, it was to find people like this lady who has come out now.
    Not to find guilt, but to see if there were lots of complaints or issues that they could just skip. Like if he was divorced because he cheated on his old lady. They wouldn't try to find the lady he cheated with, at least not in the sense that they will not be looking for SOMEONE that was at this alledged party 37 years ago.
    .. am i wrong on that?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    But they ARE NOT punished for focusing on gathering facts that will condemn the suspect while not really bothering to look for facts that will exonerate the suspect. That kind of investigation is obviously a very biased investigation when it comes to finding facts that will condemn versus facts that will exonerate.

    This why using criminal investigation to cast doubt on unbiased investigation is flawed. Pretty much everything you are pointing out about criminal investigation does not apply to unbiased investigations.
    In support of this point, a police officer can't really be used to exhonerate you based off of what you said (that was in the video). So you may be right in that sense here.
    So that is one difference. However, they are still going to be asking the same kinds of questions. Like who was at the party, what did they see etc. If police had a subject they would be asking questions specifically about that suspect.
    Like did you see this guy? or "whas he with you?".
    So, I don't see a significant difference. This investigation is not going to be looking for SOME OTHER person to pin this allegation on.
    So while the motivation may be different, I really don't see a difference in exicution.

    Like what is a question the police would as, that this investigation won't? If none, then your objection is not sustainable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, more likely than what?
    Fair question.. addressed above at length.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It does not support your point. Pointing out that something COULD happen does not support that its more likely to happen than not.
    In fairness to my point, I was pointing to something that DID happen. I said people will make mistakes..and people already have.
    I said they will be damaging to kavenaughs case.. and they already were.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    how do you know that all the information that would help exonerate him would be so weak?

    How do you know that they won't get information like:
    "She was really angry at him for pulling a mean prank and said that she was going to ruin his life"
    "She accused four other guys of assaulting her and it was proven that she was lying about most of them"
    "Here's a picture of them hanging out the Summer after his graduation and therefore after the alleged attack. You'd think if he attacked her, she wouldn't be smiling with her arm on his shoulder."

    Obviously you don't know what kind of information might be found so the argument that the information that could help him will be really weak is not supported.
    Well, considering all of those would make him a liar saying that the party never happened..
    Yea.. that is harmful. Anyone offering a good defense of him, that contradicts his actual defense hurts him.
    Have you seen the meme where the wife callse her husbands friends to see where he is?While knowing He was sleeping on her soafa. According to his friends; 4 of them said he just left, and 2 of them said he was still there.

    The point is not that everyone will be his friend and try to cover for him. The point is that any defense that contradicts his is going to incriminate him, because he lied.. (at least we can expect that from the democrat spin right?)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Once again, you are using criminal investigation where it's not relevant. It is really muddying the issue so I would like you to stop using that as an example.
    no thank you. This is my case, and I have defended the similar principles of justice, and the nature of 30 year old evidence, etc.. etc.. etc..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSd6-EvBgN4
    To serve man.

  13. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't see why not. I don't see how a police investigtion would turn up different facts, or how those facts will be used different by the democrats in the senate, then a prosicuter in a courthouse.
    They will turn up different facts because they will be looking for different facts. The police seek facts that will help them prosecute the suspect and are not interested in finding facts that will help prove the person is innocent.

    An unbiased investigation will seek all relevant facts which means that they will not be as likely to ignore facts that point to the person's innocence.

    Now, I hold that what's above amply supports that there is a significant difference between a police investigation and an unbiased investigation and therefore will consider all arguments that compare the two to be be based on a false premise and will be rejected for that reason.

    And you not being aware of the difference between Democrats and prosecutors does not mean that there are no differences. If you want to argue that the two are essentially the same, it is your burden to support that. Using your lack of knowledge of the difference to support that there is no difference would be engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you really think that when kavanuah takes the stand, he will be treated different by Dems then the police with a suspect to a crime? Other than the dems won't be trained enough to do as good of a job getting "the truth" out of a person?
    Yes, I do think he will be treated differently. Since the situation will be different in many ways and the Democrats are not police men, they will treat him differently. That might not be the answer you want from me but when asked a question that I choose to answer, I can only answer it as honestly as I can and that is indeed what I think.

    And btw, what I said is not a claim but just an answer to your question. If you are going to take the position that they are the same, the burden is yours to support that they are before I have any burden to support the opposing position.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This is what I was refering to above.
    the answer is yes.. both.
    Starting with where we agree.
    1) "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than she would be if she was recalling an event that occurred much easier in time"
    Now you diagree that that it will necissarily harm his case.
    To this, when they ask people if they were at the party, it is now more likely that someone will mis-remember him in a place that he was not, and that will be incriminating to him, because the dems will treat this "evidence" as though he is a liar.
    "More likely" than what, though? If hypothetically, they talk to someone who back then knew he was not at the party, is the person more likely to mistakenly place him at the party due to the passage of time than accurately remember that he was not there? I don't think so and if that is your argument, then you will need to support that before I will accept that argument.

    And that principle works the other way. Maybe he was at the party and someone mis-remembers that he wasn't there and says he wasn't there when he was. So the flaw in memory can just as easily work for him as against him.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) "So are you saying that one is more "more likely that someone will mistakenly incriminate an innocent man 30 years later than correctly provide accurate evidence that will help his defense"? If so, please support that this is so. Just because it can happen does not mean that it is likely to happen."
    In this, I don't mean the specific people. As in Bob is not more likely to mis-remember something that will more likely incriminate him.
    More likely than what, though? Given what you were responding to, you seem to be implying that if Bob had information that would help exonerate K, he is more likely to mis-remember the event and portray it in a way that supports his guilt. As an example, let's say Bob and K went bowling the night of the alleged event (which would be providing him an alibi), he is more likely to remember him mis-remember him being at the party in question and therefore, due to a flaw in memory, give testimony that incriminates than exonerates. I find this notion very unlikely.

    And if you mean something else, then please be specific of what two things you are referring to where A is more likely than B.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    But I do mean that the group is more likely to produce someone that will hurt an innocent man. My evidence for this is that someone already has. The lady who withdrew her claim.
    But again, more likely than what? When you say "more likely" you NEED to add "more likely than (whatever you need to say to finish the thought). Short of that, your argument is too vague to address.

    For the record, I don't think a competent investigation looking into an innocent man is more likely to turn up someone who will mistakenly incriminate someone than turn up factual information that will exonerate him. I'm not saying that it's impossible that they will find false incrimination evidence but I don't think that it will be more plentiful than accurate information that helps him.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As it has already happened, I don't have to argue probability, I have actuality on my side. someone actually did mis-remeber in such a way as to harm his case. He may not be judge because that womans withdrawn testimony convinced a senator not to vote for him.
    Please support this assertion.

    I actually don't really know what you are talking about and the fact that I don't know means that it's probably not common knowledge and therefore probably doesn't really factor into anything. I mean if I hear "She made a claim and then retracted it", I would ignore the claim so it certainly would not cause me to think that he's more likely to be guilty than if the claim had never been made at all.

    But anyway, I can't consider this supported until you explain further.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So here are the options.
    1) the investigation finds a smoking gun to exhonerate him. Such as video of another man trying to rape the girl, which produces an "OMG .. it's that guy! now I remeber.. so sorry everyone.. but now I get justice".
    To which I think this is very unlikely. #1, because time has destroyed much of the exhonerating evidence. Like clear memories of everyone at the party, the victim, the defendant etc.
    2) The investigation finds nothing, nothing as in no one remebers anything, no one is willing to speak up, or speculate or anything.
    This is very unlikely, because we already have people who have hastely spoken out, and only withdrew their claims because they got so many media calls. we also have someone on the other side denying the event occured.
    So someone is going to say something.
    3) You get some mix of people speculating in ways that are both helpful and harmful to Kavenaugh. Just someone saying "yea I saw them together at a party" is damaging to Kavanaugh.
    This I think is pretty likely. Again, it is actually certain in that we do have people who have said things like this on both sides already. So there is no reason to think the investigation will turn up anything different.

    So.. Have I missed a possibility? Are any of these oversimplified and need a new category?
    Yes, you have missed a possibility.

    4) there is no smoking gun proving that he's innocent but more evidence is found that supports that he's innocent than evidence that is found that supports that he's guilty, which improves his odds of being considered innocent and confirmed.

    And if he is indeed innocent, I would say #4 or #2 (nothing relevant is found either way) are the most likely options. They are certainly more likely than competent investigators somehow getting the investigation so wrong that they somehow bring back more incorrect evidence that makes him look guilty than evidence that exonerates him.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The reason is because benighn "facts" of previous findings such as "He was at a party" now take on a possibity of being twisted into a sentence to hang him.
    Also, the kind of investigation has changed. The next one will be about a crime, and will be criminal in nature. Before, it was to find people like this lady who has come out now.
    Not to find guilt, but to see if there were lots of complaints or issues that they could just skip. Like if he was divorced because he cheated on his old lady. They wouldn't try to find the lady he cheated with, at least not in the sense that they will not be looking for SOMEONE that was at this alledged party 37 years ago.
    .. am i wrong on that?
    I don't know about "wrong" but you have not supported that investigators bringing more evidence that exonerates him than condemns him is going to be twisted in such a way that it ends up causing him more harm than good. Even if Democrats do spin the evidence to his detriment, the Republicans likewise will be able to use the evidence to justify their votes and there will be less reason for fence-sitters to not confidently vote for K as the fear of backlash will decrease. Remember, Republicans have the majority and assuming things shake out along party lines, the only way K will not get seated is if a couple of Republicans flip and bringing forward evidence that, when observed objectively and without spin, points to his innocence, the odds of someone flipping decreases. They can say with more confidence "the new evidence convinced me that he did not do it so I voted for him".

    So evidence that points to his innocence will indeed help him.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In support of this point, a police officer can't really be used to exhonerate you based off of what you said (that was in the video). So you may be right in that sense here.
    So that is one difference. However, they are still going to be asking the same kinds of questions. Like who was at the party, what did they see etc. If police had a subject they would be asking questions specifically about that suspect.
    Like did you see this guy? or "whas he with you?".
    So, I don't see a significant difference. This investigation is not going to be looking for SOME OTHER person to pin this allegation on.
    So while the motivation may be different, I really don't see a difference in exicution.
    The questions WILL be different because the police ARE looking to pin the crime on the suspect and will ask questions that will help them do it and not ask questions that might lead to information that points to the subject's innocence.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Like what is a question the police would as, that this investigation won't? If none, then your objection is not sustainable
    And if it's your position that the answer is "none", please support that position.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In fairness to my point, I was pointing to something that DID happen. I said people will make mistakes..and people already have.
    I said they will be damaging to kavenaughs case.. and they already were.
    Again, I'm unaware of any mistake that will have a detrimental effect on his prospects.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, considering all of those would make him a liar saying that the party never happened..
    Yea.. that is harmful. Anyone offering a good defense of him, that contradicts his actual defense hurts him.
    Have you seen the meme where the wife callse her husbands friends to see where he is?While knowing He was sleeping on her soafa. According to his friends; 4 of them said he just left, and 2 of them said he was still there.

    The point is not that everyone will be his friend and try to cover for him. The point is that any defense that contradicts his is going to incriminate him, because he lied.. (at least we can expect that from the democrat spin right?)
    But that is just a hypothetical and there is no support that it's at all likely to happen. Plus it does not rebut my argument at all.

    I have supported that it's possible that the FBI might find very good evidence that would point to his innocence (like the examples I gave).

    So let me put this in a logic chain for support.

    1. If K is innocent, then whatever evidence that reveals what really happened will be evidence that he is innocent.

    2. Competent investigators are more likely to find correct evidence than incorrect evidence. And when they do find incorrect evidence, they have a good chance of knowing it's incorrect and therefore not present it.

    3. Therefore if competent investigators go looking for evidence regarding whether an innocent man committed a crime, they are more likely to find evidence showing that he's innocent than finding and accepting incorrect evidence that he's guilty

    4. THEREFORE competent investigators looking for evidence on an innocent man are more likely to support his innocence than mistakenly support his guilt.

    While the passage of time will make it harder for competent investigators to attain evidence, the notion that the passage of time makes it more likely that they will end up presenting more incorrect evidence that points to an innocent man being guilty than correct evidence that points to an innocent man being innocent is not supported. Just raising the possibility that incorrect evidence might be attained does not support that it will outweigh the good evidence. Again, I am referring to competent investigators. Even if they encounter someone who mis-remembers events, there's a good chance that they will figure out that she's not a good witness and discard her claim.
    Last edited by mican333; September 27th, 2018 at 08:30 AM.

  14. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    None of it is just or about justice.
    Is anyone claiming that?

    ---------- Post added at 04:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    There is no crime. How do I know that? Because the statute of limitations on such a thing, if a crime had occurred ran out around 30 years ago.
    I don't think so, not in Maryland anyway. But there hasn't been a police report filed, right?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,266
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Is anyone claiming that?


    I think lots of people are claiming it.


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    I don't think so, not in Maryland anyway. But there hasn't been a police report filed, right?
    Actually, when the supposed incident occurred, the SoL was 1 year. So, it has gone and went. No police report. No crime. Nothing. Just a 38 year old claim. Here is the larger point though. We established SoL to prevent mockeries like this. Who the hell can defend themselves properly against a 30 year old charge? It is silly. We are asking the accused, in this Kavanaugh, to disprove his presumed guilt. No witnesses. Faded memories. SoL have existed for a reason.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  17. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    705
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Actually, when the supposed incident occurred, the SoL was 1 year.
    This is an interesting point considering Maryland currently has no SoL on attempted rape. So the question then becomes whether a removal of the SoL works retroactively to remove the limitation from incidents for which the limit had previously passed. It would make sense that it does, largely for the same reasons that the SoL was removed - the recognition that many victims are unable to come forward until much later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here is the larger point though. We established SoL to prevent mockeries like this. Who the hell can defend themselves properly against a 30 year old charge? It is silly. We are asking the accused, in this Kavanaugh, to disprove his presumed guilt. No witnesses. Faded memories. SoL have existed for a reason.
    Sure, there is justification for the existence of SoLs, but you also have to accept that there is justification for not having or sometimes removing an SoL. As should be abundantly clear by now in 2018, many victims are unable to bring forth the claims within a reasonably short period of time after the incident has occurred. This is the main reason why some crimes have no SoL.

    ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

    Is anyone watching the live coverage of the hearing right now? Riveting stuff...

    I'd be interested to hear all yall's thoughts.

    So far, I feel that Kavanaugh's inability to provide a valid response to the question about the refusal of an FBI investigation doesn't bode well.
    He also seems to be dodging certain areas of questioning such as the drinking - when asked about whether someone's description of him as being often drunk was accurate, he listed off his schoolboy merits instead of actually answering the question.

    I think that it was a good idea for the Reps to get rid of Rachel Mitchell. They have a much stronger voice as a party in the hearing by speaking for themselves in support of Kavanaugh.

  18. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Some summary thoughts

    Q: Is Kavenauh qualified for the job on a legal basis? Yes I think so

    Q: Do any of the allegations comprise a legal peril to Kavanaugh? No, I don't think they do.

    Q: Do I think Kavanaugh is of especially high moral character? At this point, no I don't.

    Q: What do I trust-think at this point?

    I think Ford is earnest, but I can't confidently trust the accuracy of her claims due to the time involved, and the lack of direct corroboration. She is plausible for sure, credible probably, but reliable.. not so sure.

    I am fairly confident that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker and partier in Highschool and Colledge. This comes with a lot of negative connotations for me. It largely makes me distrust his claims to be a virgin during that time and makes claims he was involved in sexual misconduct far more credible. Not certain, just more likely. His highschool self is not a person I would have liked at all.

    What I learned of his later career also strikes me as him being a politically motivated prosecutor more interested in advancement than law and justice. Some of his decisions as a judge also follow this pattern as someone who, while abiding by the law, uses the law to his advantage. Not in a strictly unethical way, but in one I don't have much respect for. It shows me a continued pattern of general selfishness in his character.

    The other allegations are pretty sketchy compared to Ford's. One is very vague, the other involves him only tangentially and smacks of exaggeration in various ways. I do see them as corroboration to the general point that he was a party dude, who went to a lot of drunken parties where **** happened that probably should not be happening, but does at such events.

    Overall...

    Were I on the commitie, I'd probably vote against him. I do often vote based on what I see as peoples character, and even if he didn't attack Ford I just don't like the overall pattern I see in his history and character. And because I hold it quite possible he did attack her, I'd not be comfortable elevating him to such a high office. I would leave him where he is, which is already a prestigeous lifetime possition of significant influence.

    Which isn't to say I am saying he is guilty, only that in this situation, the possibility he is, plus what I have learned about his character, would lead me to vote against him. (I'll note that I voted agaisnt Bill Clinton both times he ran for exactly the same reaon, I don't trust his character and can't in good concience choose him as a leader.)
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  20. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,266
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is an interesting point considering Maryland currently has no SoL on attempted rape. So the question then becomes whether a removal of the SoL works retroactively to remove the limitation from incidents for which the limit had previously passed. It would make sense that it does, largely for the same reasons that the SoL was removed - the recognition that many victims are unable to come forward until much later.

    Sure, there is justification for the existence of SoLs, but you also have to accept that there is justification for not having or sometimes removing an SoL. As should be abundantly clear by now in 2018, many victims are unable to bring forth the claims within a reasonably short period of time after the incident has occurred. This is the main reason why some crimes have no SoL.

    My understanding is that it is not retroactive.

    My takeaway from Ford's testimony is that she believes something happened, but I don't believe her story happened as she is telling it. More importantly, she cannot begin to prove her story happened the way she has told it. And that is why SoL matters.

    As to whether it is a good thing that SoL has been removed, I'd say let's look at why one existed in the first place. It was to protect the accused. It was a basic protection from being accused of crimes which could not possibly be proven. So, while I understand that rape and sexual assault is horrible and while I am sympathetic that some victims may feel it is difficult to come forward, the fact is that in a system of laws which aims for justice, it is simply not just to make someone defend themselves from an accusation for an act that occurred after a long time has passed. How long is certainly a debatable point. But, certainly we can agree that after 30+ years any hopes of proving a case are between slim and none for most crimes. Certainly a sexual assault accusation where there was no extraneous evidence such as a hospital record, dead body, etc. this is just beyond ridiculous.

    I mean, let's look at the case today with Ford and K. She has made the accusation and without proof or evidence, his life is pretty much altered negatively whether he committed the act or not. The implication is that she merely needs to make an accusation and that he needs to prove his innocence. And it is impossible. No one remembers anything. She cannot prove any of her claims. He certainly cannot disprove them. However, by making the claims some 40 years after the fact the burden is all on him just to have a chance of clearing his name. The burden to prove he wasn't at a party no one can remember. The burden to prove he did not commit the act for which there isn't a single eye-witness other than the accuser. This is why we have a SoL It is unnecessary to drag someone through the mud and risk ruining a reputation for claims which almost certainly cannot be proven. The payoff is the off-chance a bad person gets put away. However, usually, what we have found is that perpetrators of these crimes don't stop committing crime. So, we get new witnesses and recent testimony that supports older accusations. This is what we saw with Cosby, Weinstein, and others. For K, we have zero additional credible witnesses step forward. Not one. We have had two other people step forward but their accusations border from not even close to sexual assault (exposing a penis at a party in college) to wildly irrational (a gang rape ring). That's it. This guy, in his teen, college, professional, and personal life has had three people come out and accuse him of stuff. None after his freshman year in college and none can offer a single witness to support their claims. This is why we need a SoL. I thought the Senate should have told the accusers to go pound sand. Seriously, you wait 38 years and after his confirmation hearings???? Pul-lease. There is nothing credible about that. Oh, and this supposed claim about reporting it to her therapist in 2012. Except that the therapist notes don't support her claim. Again, and I am getting off topic because I think this whole thing is ridiculous, but not one of her claims can be independently verified. Not one. For any of the women. What are the odds of that? I mean, if I pulled out some random story about someone I tangentially knew in high school, I am guessing I'd get at least one person who would mistakenly claim to remember the event. It just strikes me as odd.

    I have a son. He is going to go to parties one day I imagine. He will probably drink beers with his friends whether in high school or in college and he's likely to make an ass of himself at least once. All it'll take is one time of making an ass out of himself in front of one girl. Then 30 years later, maybe, she re-interprets the act as one of malice rather than buffoonery and his life is over. After all, we gotta believe all women now.... That isn't justice. That is a recipe for something much darker and much more sinister. Yeah, I think SoL are pretty important.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    So, I watched both their opening statements. My motivation tends to be to take folks at face value until I see a reason not to. So, can be bad at spotting good liars.

    Both of the felt genuine and seemed earnest. I am inclined to believe them both for that reason. Which is to say, I'm inclined to think that for the most part, they believe what they say is the truth. The emotion they both showed seemed genuine and neither is an actor by trade.

    I get from Ford that she's swimming up-stream here, feels self-righteous and after many years of trying to get stronger has decided this is the hell she's going to die on. So she's facing her demons and doing this.

    Kavanaugh strikes me as a man who feels he's being treated unjustly and is angry about that, and horrified for his family. But I also see that he is deeply guilty, and a little tortured by what he did in that period of his life. I think he thinks he never meant harm, but he knows he caused harm. Not to Ford, but to his family and to some of the women he went to school with (especially the woman referenced in his yearbook).

    So there are two ways they can both be telling the truth that strike me as plausible
    1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford and doesn't remember because he was as drunk as he was described to be
    2. Ford was mistaken about the identity of who assaulted her

    Frankly, I lean to the first. I honestly have a prejidous agaisnt people getting drunk. I've never been drunk myself, but I've seen normally "good people" do some terrible things when drunk. Both out of sheer stupidity, and out of a lack of their normal inhibitions.
    Which is not to say the second is implausible, it is entirely plausible which is why I listed it.

    That said, I think if he did think he'd done it, he'd be horrified by it, ashamed of it. Perhaps so much so he can't allow himself to beleive it. Unlike, say, our president, I don't think molesting women is part of his normal character. I do think getting **** faced drunk is part of his normal character, though I doubt that's a common thing for him now compared to highschool and colldge. I definately have more sympathy for him watching his testimony as I don't think he's lying, though I also think he's holding back some of the truth. (nearly anyone would)

    So having seen that, I'm less sure how I'd vote on him. I think he did something here more likely than not, but I also think he was drunk out of his mind. So it dosn't speak to his concious character so much as his inner pathos and his poor character as a teenager in deciding that getting drunk alot was a good idea.

    Its a good lesson in why getting drunk is generally not a good idea. You may well do something that you wouldn't normally, that comes back to haunt you in a big way. He'd be far from the first to have that happen. He's still not the kind of person I much like, but I have a bit more sympathy for him. He clearly does have love for many of the people in his life past and present.

    I think its a challenging question. If you did something to badly hurt someone as a teenager, while drunk. 38 years later, what consiquences and responsibility should you bear, and how should you be judged for it? Does it make a difference if you don't even remember it?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    ---
    I am no longer interested in discussing hypotheticals and chances for what an investigation will turn up. Because, things are actually happening now.
    There is a lot to digest now that things are moving again.
    ----
    To serve man.

  23. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    705
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Supreme court nominations and sexual assault accusations

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    My understanding is that it is not retroactive.
    Yeah, it looks like Kavanaugh is grandfathered in. I still think it makes sense that it should be, for the reasons already given.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yeah, I think SoL are pretty important.
    It strikes me that most of your points about the need for a SoL are centred around the inability to prove the allegations and the repercussions on an innocent person who is unable to defend themselves against a decades-old accusation.

    However, as already described, there have been multiple cases where victims only bring forth allegations after a long period of time, and most only after others have brought forth allegations against the same alleged assaulter. The example of child-raping priests comes to mind.
    Do you deny that the lack of a SoL in such cases is a good thing, and that having a SoL would prevent those rapists from seeing justice?

    It seems there are two considerations to be made regarding how late we should allow allegations to be made. One is the risk of ruining potentially innocent folks' reputations, lives, and possibly even the lives of their family. The other is the risk of allowing actual rapists and assaulters to go unpunished because their victims are unable to bring forth allegations until some time has passed.

    You use your son as an example of the former consideration, but in support of the latter consideration, all you need to do is imagine that you instead had a daughter who was assaulted while quite young and was unable to tell anyone, just like many other victims. Do you deny that the same protective emotions you've expressed about your son would cause you to be just as if not more protective about your daughter and therefore want her assaulter to be punished no matter how much time had passed?

    I guess it all comes down to a trade-off of how bad the alleged crime is vs. how much damage could be done to the accused if innocent. This appears to be reflected in how most states' SoLs exist for lesser crimes, while the worse crimes have no SoL. It's a trade-off between us not wanting to allow really bad folks to go unpunished vs. our fear of damaging someone innocent.

 

 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 88
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 09:56 PM
  2. Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: July 19th, 2012, 07:20 AM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 4th, 2012, 12:31 PM
  4. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 10:40 AM
  5. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •