Why are we not talking about false accusations of s3xual assault?

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

I agree with you. But a lot of people think that he's basically evil, probably a rapist, possibly violent, alcholic, what have you. I was point out to Sneezy that having millions of people think that about you isn't inconsequential.

 

Tell me about it. Fortunately for him, it doesn't affect his livelihood or his ability to support or care for his children. Let me break out my tiny violin. 

[EmseB]

10 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

It being true does not equal being provable in a court of law. 

 

Not being provable in a court of law doesn't mean he can't be impeached.

Even if the statute of limitations had run out (which I don't think it has according to MD law - assault with attempt to rape doesn't have a statute of limitations AFAIK), you can be impeached and removed from the bench for any number of things without being convicted of anything.

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Tell me about it. Fortunately for him, it doesn't affect his livelihood or his ability to support or care for his children. Let me break out my tiny violin. 

LOL, it's as if you are posting to illustrate my point.

Who cares if millions of people think he's a rapist. It doesn't matter because he's rich. His wife and his kids are acceptable casualties in all this because they have money. He still got the job so what does it matter if they can't walk around outside without worrying if someone is going to try to kill them?

Gross.

[Sneezyone]

I haven't met his wife and kids. I would hope that he's been honest with them about both his past and how he's changed (or not). I'm not in their household business and don't care much how they handle their personal affairs. I assume his kids are aware of current events just as mine are. I assume they're sheltered from a lot and don't read comment feeds, as mine don't. Perhaps they've even been affected by the news, as mine have. I assume he, as a parent, does as I do and provides context and commentary on the day's events. If I were to assume his kids were permanently damaged, I'd have to believe the same of mine. No, I don't believe that. I believe you get the hand you're dealt and do your best to press on. His liberty is not at risk and his kids have more advantages than most. I impress that upon my children all the time. Yes, I would be breaking out my tiny violin if they claimed otherwise.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

Quote

had buddies. I planned on two drinks, which is well within my tolerance. Last thing I remember is asking for the second drink. I was known to not sleep around. I didn't sleep with strangers, or people I barely knew. I barely knew this guy, had met him one other time. I was at the local italian pizza place that happened to have a bar you could get beer at. And digital golf and such. That was my reputation, and what I did, and still that didn't protect me. I thought being with friends, in a familiar place I'd been going to since I was in elementary school, with people everwhere, was safe. I was wrong. And nothing about my reputation would have mattered given thta I coudln't PROVE anything. And as others have said, it shouldn't. I could prove we were together, but couldn't prove it was rape. No way to do that. I was at a bar, I was seen drinking, I left with him (so I'm told) on my own two feet. How on earth would I or anyone prove that me later saying rape wasn't just "changing my mind"? I couldn't. No one could. We can't on the one hand say women should report it more, and on the other hand lament women ruining men's lives with allegations they can't prove. If you shouldn't accuse someone if you can't prove it, as many are saying in this thread, then how can we tell women to report it? That's the dicotomy I'm trying to point out. 

Katie, I’m not cross-examining you for what you did or did not do when bad things happened to you. I am terribly sorry they happen to anyone. But just because a given set of precautioned did not avert disaster for you does not mean precautions are worthless. 

One time, in a nice part of town, in broad daylight, in one of the wealthiest counties in the entire country, my car window was smashed in and my purse was stolen. The odds were against this happening. I did do one thing, however, that increased the probability that it would: I left my purse in plain view in the car. Ironically, I also caused greater loss because I locked my doors than if I had just left the car unlocked, because the smashed window cost $700 to repair. Now - the precautions one ought to take did not work for me in that instance, except for if I had not left the purse behind, it logically wouldn’t have been targeted. But in any case, locking my doors and being in a non-sketchy place in the middle of the day did not avert the crime. However, I still take those same precautions, with one additional one: I never leave anything valuable visible in my car. 

Certainly not all disasters can be averted. They just cannot! But that doesn’t preclude it being wise to make them less likely. I think we (society, example) err when we tell women they shouldn’t lock the proverbial doors because the car window could be smashed in anyway. Remember the little Sunday School song that went Be careful little feet where you walk...etc.? It’s still good advice. 

[EmseB]

51 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I haven't met his wife and kids. I would hope that he's been honest with them about both his past and how he's changed (or not). I'm not in their household business and don't care much how they handle their personal affairs. I assume his kids are aware of current events just as mine are. I assume they're sheltered from a lot and don't read comment feeds, as mine don't. Perhaps they've even been affected by the news, as mine have. I assume he, as a parent, does as I do and provides context and commentary on the day's events. If I were to assume his kids were permanently damaged, I'd have to believe the same of mine. No, I don't believe that. I believe you get the hand you're dealt and do your best to press on. His liberty is not at risk and his kids have more advantages than most. I impress that upon my children all the time. Yes, I would be breaking out my tiny violin if they claimed otherwise.

I have missed something here. Are you saying you or one of your kids has been publicly accused of something and have received public scrutiny? I'm not trying to get in your business or ask for details, I'm just trying to figure out why you keep relating this situation of having one's reputation ruined back to yourself and your kids as if you have gone through something similar with them.

In any case, yeah, I hope this teaches them resilience and perseverance. I don't think getting death threats because someone has a political beef about your dad is just fate, oh well, deal with it, good thing you have money and good schools.

Also, I'd define death threats as pretty directly having your liberty put at risk.

[Sneezyone]

25 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I have missed something here. Are you saying you or one of your kids has been publicly accused of something and have received public scrutiny? I'm not trying to get in your business or ask for details, I'm just trying to figure out why you keep relating this situation of having one's reputation ruined back to yourself and your kids as if you have gone through something similar with them.

In any case, yeah, I hope this teaches them resilience and perseverance. I don't think getting death threats because someone has a political beef about your dad is just fate, oh well, deal with it, good thing you have money and good schools.

Also, I'd define death threats as pretty directly having your liberty put at risk.

 

You're kidding, right?

Yeah, my kids have been subject to public scrutiny. Every day, every way, when I'm with them and when I'm not. When my daughter was at the water park and being harassed. When she was at school and being accused of giving a BJ to a kid she barely knew and was harassed by high school students behind that rumor. I nearly jumped across the conference room table. Only DH's hand on my leg held me back. It turned out the 11yo white accuser was the DoDEA school's primary vape dealer and wanted to move the spotlight. When DS was being bullied and the school cautioned me that any physical retaliation on his part would lead to expulsion. Yeah, they've been accused of bad behavior before and they will be again.  They're black. They don't get the benefit of the doubt. It's a lesson my Dad taught me and one I teach them. We don't have the funds or position to have random strangers go to bat for us. And yet, they are fortunate. My mom is a lawyer and I know how to advocate for them WITH WORDS. They are privileged with the many experiences we've been able to give them. They do not need pity. They need a better world. Get back to me when you can relate.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

21 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

You know, I have participated in many of these threads is because, in the Kavanaugh accusation, I see my DH.

Not that I believe DH has ever attempted to rape a woman ever.

But...my DH drank a lot and did some drugs as a high school student.  His level of drinking probably was on par with Kavanaugh's, though no one else cares because he was working class, not a rich boy.  After high school my DH went into the military and was stationed overseas.  He often credits the military with cleaning his butt up.  Except, while stationed overseas, he got into a drunken bar fight and ended up being arrested by the Korean National Police.  According to DH his BAC was so high..........he should be dead.   He was an idiot back then.  

Then, when he got back home, he went on to become a prison guard.  He did that for years before I met him and he never once imagined there was any other identity for him.e situations he was in could EASILY lend themselves to an accusation otherwise.  And it scares me.  

 

These situations he was in....that he put himself in....would be EASY to result in accusations.  EASY.  

 

I will be honest, I don't fear my kids being assaulted, as much as I fear my DH being falsely accused.  I understand the statistics but I also understand our family's specific situations.

 

You wanna know something? *THIS* is honesty I can relate to. I can understand being afraid that things that happened in the past can come back to bite you in the ass. We do grow, change, move on, etc. There are things I've done that I wouldn't want to be called to account for either. Nothing criminal, but still. What I cannot relate to is the idea that we are/were either unaware that those activities were problematic or have zero culpability for them. We do know better, even at the time. We do know better now. Saying that isn't THE.END. Lying about it, IMO, is. I don't think the vast majority of people are so ideological that they cannot appreciate that people change. Are there some, sure. Do they constitute the majority or even a plurality? I don't think so.

I do happen to fear my daughter being assaulted AS MUCH AS I worry about my son being accused. Both are vulnerable and at risk due to the prejudices of others and DD is vulnerable to more powerful people and I'm not sure I can save them. Both possibilities are vivid and clear in my mind.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[goldberry]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

You are twisting my words. I never said I’m so brave and all non-reporters are just weak ding-dongs. 

 

I could go back through your post I was referring to and make the point plain, but I will drop it.  I've pointed out how what you said is insulting, and you say "it's not" so we are obviously done with that conversation.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

I could go back through your post I was referring to and make the point plain, but I will drop it.  I've pointed out how what you said is insulting, and you say "it's not" so we are obviously done with that conversation.  

I explained that I was not insulting anybody or presenting myself as better or braver than someone else. I can’t help if you are going to insist that it was an insult no matter what I meant. 

[goldberry]

17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I do not fear my son being accused as much as I fear my DH being accused.  My DS is 6, and I have the ability to guide him, to help to shape him.   I can't change a single thing about my DH's past.  But, my DH's past, while it in some ways helps to define him............................it also doesn't define who he is today.  He is a GREAT man.  Everything he does is for his wife and children.  And I can promise that my DH has the most excellent moral character one can imagine.  He admits fully that he screwed up at times as a teen and young adult.  And now, the person you would meet today..............he is just simply not the same.  

 

Thank you for sharing that.  I agree that 20 years ago doesn't define someone and that people can be a different person. I think it is one of the most amazing things about humans, the ability to change.  The unfortunate thing is we are not shielded from the results of our past.  Sometimes because of past actions we can be distrusted and/or denied opportunities.  It's not fair necessarily.  But it's real, because not everyone can know or see how much a person has changed.  It's part of consequences, and sometimes consequences are long and hard.

Edited for rampant comma misuse

Edited November 6, 2018 by goldberry

[Sneezyone]

20 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I do not fear my son being accused as much as I fear my DH being accused.  My DS is 6, and I have the ability to guide him, to help to shape him.   I can't change a single thing about my DH's past.  But, my DH's past, while it in some ways helps to define him............................it also doesn't define who he is today.  He is a GREAT man.  Everything he does is for his wife and children.  And I can promise that my DH has the most excellent moral character one can imagine.  He admits fully that he screwed up at times as a teen and young adult.  And now, the person you would meet today..............he is just simply not the same.  

 

Speaking ONLY for me, if Kavanaugh had said that he'd changed, grown I would have let.it.go., even as a person with different political ideas. The inability to reflect on your past with any sense of regret or perspective is a red flag in terms of basic human decency to me. I grant regular Joes that leeway everyday, the same kind I'd want if the shoe were on the other foot. Part of the problem with Kavanaugh as a poster boy for false accusations is, to me, the lack of introspection and humility he displayed, grace under fire. Some folks have to display that no matter what, others only when it's convenient or politically expedient. I question both why that is and how to set the bar in a way that's fair to all.

As for my DS, he's young too. I do still have the ability to mold and shape him although not for much longer. I've done so in ways that even DH might disagree with, emphasizing the need for explicit consent and bodily autonomy for all, but I don't really worry about my DH. He, unlike some of his peers, has ALWAYS known that any whiff of scandal could tank his military career. He stays as far as humanly possible from any lines, going so far as to ask me whether it was normal for a woman at work to brush her breasts against him when she leans down. FTR- no, it wasn't ok and, yes, I brushed her back...HARD.

I think these messages need to be more explicit and consistent going forward. We don't need to be minimizing them or suggesting that sexual assault and attempted rape are NBD. We need more people to say we were wrong and we will do better/have done better.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

Rape, and/or attempted rape ARE a big deal.  And I don't think we should ever classify them as NBD.  

 

The biggest problem I have, and the fear I discussed, is the assumption that a person has committed a particular act, just because someone from 35 years ago said so.  I can believe that 30 years ago (my Dh is about 4 yrs younger that Kavanaugh) my DH was an ass.  He admits he was an ass.

 

But what he wouldn't admit to was sexual assault, or attempted rape when it didn't happen.  

 

Kavanaugh admitted to drinking, and I felt he even admitted to drinking heavily.  What he didn't admit (or having grown from) is having committed the act that Ford said he did.  And in spite of the fact that I fully recognize that in and around 1996 (when my DH turned 17, the same age Kavanaugh was at the time of the incident in question) my spouse was an idiot and an ass, I also would NEVER want to have to weather an accusation that wasn't true from that time.  I would not want him to admit to something that he didn't do.  Regardless of whatever other idiocy he did participate in.  

 

<<removed personal info>>

I don't think we have to ignore or gloss over the ambiguities of the past by suggesting that they're wrong or made up to clear our respective consciences. Yes there are false allegations. There are also lots of shades of gray. I don't think dwelling in that space is anyone's fault but the parties involved, and I'm not speaking of Ms. Blasey-Ford. I totally understand not wanting to weather such a storm. If DH were to engage in those behaviors today, it'd be splashed all over Navy Times. Definitely no fun. I also know tho, that I'd still receive a healthy pension. DH would be able to retire and we'd go on. So would our kids.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

28 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

The growth or change aspect only makes sense if binge drinking or sexual impropriety are actually true.  And, quite frankly, there were a whole lot of people without anything to gain personally or politically who came forward and indicated they had seen no such pattern in him then or since - significant more, numerically, than who spoke to the contrary.

Rereading his testimony, it indicated plenty of regret for varying levels of teen indiscretion, just not the level the committee or some members of the public seemed to want to utilize for ‘gotcha’s. This is why statements like yours don’t gain more traction.  It just doesn’t ring true to what many people saw in that courtroom or what came out in his record before or since, with deeper scrutiny.  He doesn’t come out looking like a reformed partier with a temper problem who tried to rape someone - that accusation looks as flimsy or flimsier than ever, honestly.  And his anger at the way the entire thing was handled looks more and more justified in hindsight, from where I sit.  But I’m just one person with one viewpoint.  

And perhaps he could have controlled himself better.  But I don’t kid myself into thinking that wouldn’t have sparked a whole different set of criticisms about his lack of emotional response and detachment and guilt because of his less than staunch personal defense, either.  There was no ‘winning’ the situation he was placed in with public perception,  beyond what he did.  Even just a few weeks of airspace and the dying downs of media furor seems to bear than out, IMO.

This is literally word for word out of his opening statement - “But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now.”

 

Sorry, I'm not willing to go so far as to believe all of the binge drinking accusations are lies. Just no. I do not believe he was fully honest or forthcoming. That was one line in a much longer screed about how offended he was. YMMV.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Liz CA]

29 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I will put this here and I will probably delete it later but I think it's relevant.

I don't think we have to ignore or gloss over the ambiguities of the past by suggesting that they're wrong or made up to clear our respective consciences. Yes there are false allegations. There are also lots of shades of gray. I don't think dwelling in that space is anyone's fault but the parties involved, and I'm not speaking of Ms. Blasey-Ford. I totally understand not wanting to weather such a storm. If DH were to engage in those behaviors today, it'd be splashed all over Navy Times. Definitely no fun. I also know tho, that I'd still receive a healthy pension. DH would be able to retire and we'd go on. So would our kids.

 

Sneezy, if the person you mentioned in your example (edited so you can delete later) applied to a position where he would be scrutinized heavily and his past explored from all angles, would you want him to step back and decline once the existence of a daughter was determined and the mother was not certain how to classify the encounter even though your brother sounds certain it was not rape?

We have all made crummy choices at one point or another but a crummy choice like drinking too much, having sexual encounters that lead to pregnancy, etc. does not necessarily mean somebody was indeed raped. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Liz CA
Worded differently so it can be deleted

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Liz CA said:

 

Sneezy, if your brother applied to a position where we would be scrutinized heavily and his past explored from all angles, would you want him to step back and decline once the existence of a daughter was determined and the mother was not certain how to classify the encounter even though your brother sounds certain it was not rape?

 

Abso-freaking-lutely, both to spare the mother, their child, and the people in his life since then.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[ktgrok]

Again, the issue becomes this dichotomy, where one the one hand it is "we shouldn't believe a woman if there isn't absolute proof, because it could ruin an innocent man's life" and "women should absolutely report (aka accuse) rape right away" even as we know that most of the time there won't be absolute proof of it. We can't have it both ways. 

[Liz CA]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

Again, the issue becomes this dichotomy, where one the one hand it is "we shouldn't believe a woman if there isn't absolute proof, because it could ruin an innocent man's life" and "women should absolutely report (aka accuse) rape right away" even as we know that most of the time there won't be absolute proof of it. We can't have it both ways. 

 

And this is the crux of it. It is a horrible position to be in on either end. Rape kits have helped a lot but are not always conclusive or it's too late to perform the testing. 

I am still for reporting and I am still for evidence knowing full and well that we cannot have it all the time. What I really wish was different in cases like Kavanaugh's is that a thorough investigation could have been performed with less information disclosed publicly. Witnesses could have been "gagged" or what not. I think this would have served both parties better. Ford will now be the woman who arguably accused someone of a crime he did not commit and he will be the guy who got away with a crime because nobody could prove it. Crummy.

[Liz CA]

25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Abso-freaking-lutely, both to spare the mother of my niece, their daughter, and the people in his life since then.

 

And in this example, the person is sure (if I read correctly) that he had this encounter and has possibly fathered a child. If he had been drinking but had never come close to having sexual contact but was accused of it, would you feel differently?

I mean where is the line where we should crawl into our shell and say: 'Yes, I've made crummy choices. I suppose I should not aspire to much now because of those crummy choices back then?" I can see why in the example you shared, it might behoove all parties to withdraw a nomination or decline whatever to spare family the horror but in Kavanaugh's case, the family was not spared anything and yet by all appearances / testimonies it did not happen as accused or didn't happen at all.

Now if your "crummy" choice includes rape /assault, then it's totally different.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Liz CA

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

And in this example, the person is sure (if I read correctly) that he had this encounter and has possibly fathered a child. If he had been drinking but had never come close to having sexual contact but was accused of it, would you feel differently?

I mean where is the line where we should crawl into our shell and say: 'Yes, I've made crummy choices. I suppose I should not aspire to much now because of those crummy choices back then?" I can see why in the example you shared, it might behoove all parties to withdraw a nomination or decline whatever to spare family the horror but in Kavanaugh's case, the family was not spared anything and yet by all appearances / testimonies it did not happen as accused or didn't happen at all.

 

Well, in the incident I described, the DNA confirmed paternity so there's no doubt.

For me, the issue with Kav is honesty and humility. I do not believe he displayed either. I do believe more happened than he admitted and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am more inclined to believe he was a douche toward women than not. I do not believe he was totally honest about that and it makes me question his integrity today. His combativeness did not help.

ETA: People have to draw that line for themselves. I don't think it's fair to say, hey, my career is more important than my family and then ALSO say, my family is the victim. He put his family in that position and no one else.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

You're kidding, right?

Yeah, my kids have been subject to public scrutiny. Every day, every way, when I'm with them and when I'm not. When my daughter was at the water park and being harassed. When she was at school and being accused of giving a BJ to a kid she barely knew and was harassed by high school students behind that rumor. I nearly jumped across the conference room table. Only DH's hand on my leg held me back. It turned out the 11yo white accuser was the DoDEA school's primary vape dealer and wanted to move the spotlight. When DS was being bullied and the school cautioned me that any physical retaliation on his part would lead to expulsion. Yeah, they've been accused of bad behavior before and they will be again.  They're black. They don't get the benefit of the doubt. It's a lesson my Dad taught me and one I teach them. We don't have the funds or position to have random strangers go to bat for us. And yet, they are fortunate. My mom is a lawyer and I know how to advocate for them WITH WORDS. They are privileged with the many experiences we've been able to give them. They do not need pity. They need a better world. Get back to me when you can relate.

I was talking about having an immediate family member's possible guilt publicized nationally or internationally with millions watching and death threats and other vile remarks coming from complete strangers. Having to go to school with everyone else watching your dad be accused of rape on the nightly news. That is what I have been referring to this whole time. 

I am sorry for your and your kids' experiences. I have had my kids accused of things I'm sure they did not do a couple of times in recent memory. We are outliers in our immediate neighborhood and that has led to some tension to put it mildly. I don't say this to one up you, but I do feel I can relate to what you're saying in some small way. I do not feel as though my experience is relatable to the K family's whatsoever.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I was talking about having an immediate family member's possible guilt publicized nationally or internationally with millions watching and death threats and other vile remarks coming from complete strangers. Having to go to school with everyone else watching your dad be accused of rape on the nightly news. That is what I have been referring to this whole time. 

I am sorry for your and your kids' experiences. I have had my kids accused of things I'm sure they did not do a couple of times in recent memory. We are outliers in our immediate neighborhood and that has led to some tension to put it mildly. I don't say this to one up you, but I do feel I can relate to what you're saying in some small way. I do not feel as though my experience is relatable to the K family's whatsoever.

 

It's all relative. His problems may be bigger but so, too, is his security detail and bank balance. That makes a difference. I cannot say with a straight face that his children aren't in a better position than my own.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Well, in the incident I described, the DNA confirmed paternity so there's no doubt.

For me, the issue with Kav is honesty and humility. I do not believe he displayed either. I do believe more happened than he admitted and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I am more inclined to believe he was a douche toward women than not. I do not believe he was totally honest about that and it makes me question his integrity today. His combativeness did not help.

ETA: People have to draw that line for themselves. I don't think it's fair to say, hey, my career is more important than my family and then ALSO say, my family is the victim. He put his family in that position and no one else.

Perhaps he didn't do what he was accused of so had no idea that he was putting his family in any position? If he was falsely accused the he and his family were the victims. Even if he has a high profile job.

[Sneezyone]

16 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Perhaps he didn't do what he was accused of so had no idea that he was putting his family in any position? If he was falsely accused the he and his family were the victims. Even if he has a high profile job.

 

That doesn't jive with the leaked messages that show he was coordinating his response to various accusers before they went public, including trying to obtain photos of himself and a smiling accuser. 

ETA: Look, you won't find tons of messages from me or threads where I'm condemning Neil Gorsuch all over the Internet. I don't agree with the man on most anything. I do respect him and believe he's a fundamentally decent human being with a very different idea about the law and the Constitution. He also happens to have attended the same high school as Kavanaugh at roughly the same time so it's not a matter of the era in which they attended inspiring misconduct. I do not feel the same about Kavanaugh and I do not think he's a good example of the soul-destroying impact of false accusations. He is not a martyr.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[kiwik]

9 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, it was already illegal by then

It has been illegal for a very long time here too but until recently it was considered something best left behind closed doors and women didn't speak out. In some sections of society it is still considered normal.

[EmseB]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

It's all relative. His problems may be bigger but so, too, is his security detail and bank balance. That makes a difference. I cannot say with a straight face that his children aren't in a better position than my own.

I was clarifying what I was talking about for the purposes of this discussion. It seems that we diverge in what we consider similar experiences.

I would not have wished to trade places with his wife or put my kids in his girls' shoes for any amount of money. The thought of enduring something like that with mythe DH or one of my sons made my stomach turn. Security detail or no, I would be terrified if my husband could not walk down the steps of the USSC because of people's hatred toward him over an unproven allegation from high school and at least two other completely fabricated stories. I don't think money would be the answer for me and I do think my kids are better off than theI K girls...not wealth-wise I guess.

[LucyStoner]

Who is not talking about it?  I see a lot of people talking about it.  

I believe in keeping problems in proportion.  My sons are more likely to be sexually abused than they are to be falsely accused.   Do I have zero concerns about false allegations?  No.  Does the number and fall out of false allegations come close to the sheer volume of sexual abuse in this country?  Nope.  

We’ve been very close to two difficult child custody battles in the last 4 years.  During that time, from time to time people who wanted to undermine our credibility have made false allegations of various kinds about us and my father was even falsely accused of sexual abuse.  Nothing came of it (besides me so completely cutting off these people from my life.)  I don’t know the stats on this but I would hazard to guess that family law is where a lot of false allegations of sexual abuse are made.  

 

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I was clarifying what I was talking about for the purposes of this discussion. It seems that we diverge in what we consider similar experiences.

I would not have wished to trade places with his wife or put my kids in his girls' shoes for any amount of money. The thought of enduring something like that with mythe DH or one of my sons made my stomach turn. Security detail or no, I would be terrified if my husband could not walk down the steps of the USSC because of people's hatred toward him over an unproven allegation from high school and at least two other completely fabricated stories. I don't think money would be the answer for me and I do think my kids are better off than theI K girls...not wealth-wise I guess.

 

I would not have wanted that experience either. I can tell you that being on a small base overseas and having your child accused, as mine was, is no picnic. Not. At. All. 

I think the difference is that I would put the blame on *MY SPOUSE* if he were to seek a national role despite knowing of his complicated past. He should know better. The fact that Kavanaugh pursued the opportunity anyway, despite his already secure position on the federal bench means his wife a) agreed to it knowing what was to come or b) he withheld that info. from her. They are adults who made a decision for their family, their kids.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

That doesn't jive with the leaked messages that show he was coordinating his response to various accusers before they went public, including trying to obtain photos of himself and a smiling accuser. 

ETA: Look, you won't find tons of messages from me or threads where I'm condemning Neil Gorsuch all over the Internet. I don't agree with the man on most anything. I do respect him and believe he's a fundamentally decent human being with a very different idea about the law and the Constitution also happens to have attended the same high school at roughly the same time so it's not a matter of the era in which they attended inspiring misconduct. I do not feel the same about Kavanaugh and I do not think he's a good example of the soul-destroying impact of false accusations. He is not a martyr.

I'm cynical enough to think that K would have sailed thru (relatively speaking) had he been nominated for Scalia's seat instead of Kennedy, but only because the allegations against K were calculated to drop after the hearings and investigations were done but before the vote.

And it's not like Gorsuch didn't get some pretty unsavory charges leveled against him anyway...bigotry, sexism, etc. We've lost that bit of memory in order to say K must be guilty because this didn't happen to Gorsuch!

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, EmseB said:

I'm cynical enough to think that K would have sailed thru (relatively speaking) had he been nominated for Scalia's seat instead of Kennedy, but only because the allegations against K were calculated to drop after the hearings and investigations were done but before the vote.

And it's not like Gorsuch didn't get some pretty unsavory charges leveled against him anyway...bigotry, sexism, etc. We've lost that bit of memory in order to say K must be guilty because this didn't happen to Gorsuch!

 

Those accusations were WRT his opinions, his judicial rulings, not his personal conduct. Big difference IMO.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I don't have 'sympathy' in either case. I simply believe an attempt to use the power of the state to punish someone (with malice and intent) should incur a proportional response--that is the use of the power of the state. And, in the alternative, when one is NOT using the power of the state to further a false allegation, the power of the state should not be deployed.

Well they did bring in the FBI, and what was to prevent anyone from filing a criminal charge?  The prosecutor from the location where the alleged behavior took place said he would launch a criminal investigation if anyone filed charges.

But yeah, it's not the same as an innocent guy behind bars for years, I agree.  But the movement insisting the accusers must always be believed does harm those innocent guys who are prosecuted.

Do you remember the screaming, the attacks, the borderline assaults that were taking place over the fact that not everyone believed and acted on the accusations without evidence sufficient to prosecute?  This is a real problem IMO.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Understand. My sympathy for false accusations is slim. But my DD saying, "DS did it!" to me or DH is not the same as her saying , "I told the police officer that DS did it!" when neither statement is true. The consequences of each are not the same.

Well the magnitude of having the entire world hear a horrific false accusation is also a lot different than having to prove to the local cops and your small circle of loved ones that you didn't do it.  Seems to me that unless you actually end with a conviction, you can put the latter behind you a lot faster.

Yeah, he was confirmed, very narrowly, but it could easily have gone the other way.  Plus, he really has no platform to undo the damage done to his reputation, whether the allegations were true or not.  The half of the country who believes Ford will always believe K is a rapist.  That's not as bad as being behind bars for years, but the standard of proof for putting someone behind bars is a lot higher.

So yes, I think the punishment for false accusation should be severe even if the person does not end up in prison.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

So what? He'd still be a sitting federal judge. That's also a lifetime appointment.

ETA: I feel like there's a lot of teeth gnashing about the risk to the *reputation* of successful white men that isn't there for the actual lives/liberty of non-white men. False accusations are not new.

I have the same opinion about Justice Thomas.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

There is, in fact, a statute of limitations for criminal offenses lie sexual assault that varies by state and 30 years is well past it. Impeachment requires the consent of Congress. As we all observed, there was insufficient support for that. If there had been sufficient proof, the story might have been different.

A certain political party has indicated that if it takes power then he will be impeached.

[SKL]

7 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Tell me about it. Fortunately for him, it doesn't affect his livelihood or his ability to support or care for his children. Let me break out my tiny violin. 

So false accusations are OK as long as the accused is rich enough to still feed his kids?  Or hate is more justified as long as the person happened to be born into a more privileged situation than some people?  Paybacks for all the things somebody else did to marginalized people.

We're talking about an ideal of justice, not how we can level an unfair playing field by unfair tactics.

[DawnM]

20 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I am a woman who wants to see women who make false accusations prosecuted.  I have been assaulted - and I consider these women to make it harder for real victims.

I'm also a mother of sons - and a false accusation is something that can ruin their lives, not to mention the legal bills.

and if crystal magnum (the woman in the duke lacrosse case) had been prosecuted, she would have been in jail, instead of walking around and shot one boyfriend and stabbed another to death.

 

I am also very pro-victim, but yes, I agree with you.  I have seen some co-workers falsely accused and it was horrific.   The AP and teacher I am thinking of, were accused by students because they wanted revenge on them.  I am 100% positive nothing happened.  For one thing, the AP didn't even have a door on his office and the entire thing was window/glass.  The student says it happened in his office, during school hours.  No.  No it didn't.  I could give lots of detail as to the proof it didn't happen, but the poor man ended up in a county facility with his life threatened, for over 30 days.  He has never been the same since.  It broke him.

I have thought a lot about my own sons this past year, now that they are both in college.  One of my sons has the best heart and always wants to help.  He got into trouble this year for helping a girl in the lobby get to her room.  She was drunk, couldn't even walk, and asked my son and his friend to help her get to her room.  They did.  Security on campus found out and he and his friend got in trouble for not calling security on her.  I told him that it was for HIS protection that he call security.  He just doesn't think anyone would ever accuse him of something he didn't do.  He is very naive that way.  And yes, we have talked to him over and over again.  I worry.

 

PS:  And I was 100% against Kavanaugh's being sworn in.  I don't know if he did it or not, I am leaning towards believing he did something!  But I didn't like him anyway, so that could have swayed my opinion too.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by DawnM

[mom@shiloh]

17 hours ago, Quill said:

*sigh* I’m simply saying this board is not a news outlet with its own agenda and is not a group of people all promoting a unified view of events. 

In no way am I trying to distance from the Kavanaugh accusation specifically, though I want and intend to talk about false accusation more broadly. 

I feel like there’s some sort of misunderstanding going on here but I’m not sure what it is. 

I find it extremely worrisome that this false accusation, the Kavanaugh one, is not being broadcast widely (at least not yet) because statistics are not static and, if the plea for believing victims is being made - a good thing - we must acknowledge how wrongly that can go when claims are made falsly. We cannot rest on some past statistic saying false accusations are rare because we are trying to change the variable by saying we need to believe accusations, at least to the point of investigation and hearing. By changing the variable of who gets believed, we change the probability of who might accuse. 

We also seem to have tossed aside "innocent until proven guilty".  I quit reading the initial thread on Kavanaugh here because this board seemed to have so much outrage over the allegations that he was guilty no matter what.  Also -- high school.  Do you all remember high school?  I am of the opinion that everyone's high school activities should be automatically erased once you've moved on. (ok, I'm joking a little bit there) I was more interested in the 35 intervening years.

[mom@shiloh]

16 hours ago, Quill said:

And as I said from the beginning, the term “attempted rape” is specifically meant to frame it as horrible. As I said, I had a similar incident happen to me but have never described it as “attempted rape” and never will do so. There must be many tens of thousands of young women who experienced a similar incident and don’t think it was for themselves personally, any big deal. 

Also, what we expect from our sons now is different from what was expected in the eighties. I would slap my son upside his dang head, too, if I knew him to do either of those things. But we have also evolved as a society and we can’t judge behavior from forty years ago by the same standard as we would today. 

Absolutely.  What is considered sexual harassment now was simply part of my day in junior and senior high. I'm not saying that was right, just saying that's the way it was. I also would not tolerate my boys treating girls the way that I was treated, but I can't deny my own culpability in flirting and encouraging certain behaviors. 

[Garga]

20 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

The thing with human memory is that just because she believes 100% that she is telling the absolutely truth....that still doesn't mean she's right.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

Sorry for the funky formatting.

 

 

 

That example was for a complete stranger.  I wonder what memory is like when it’s someone you already know.  I think this might be comparing apples to oranges.  If it’s a stranger, then I can see one getting it wrong.  But how often does it happen that I mistake someone I know for someone else I know?  That would be bizarre. 

19 hours ago, Quill said:

*sigh* I’m simply saying this board is not a news outlet with its own agenda and is not a group of people all promoting a unified view of events. 

In no way am I trying to distance from the Kavanaugh accusation specifically, though I want and intend to talk about false accusation more broadly. 

I feel like there’s some sort of misunderstanding going on here but I’m not sure what it is. 

I find it extremely worrisome that this false accusation, the Kavanaugh one, is not being broadcast widely (at least not yet) because statistics are not static and, if the plea for believing victims is being made - a good thing - we must acknowledge how wrongly that can go when claims are made falsly. We cannot rest on some past statistic saying false accusations are rare because we are trying to change the variable by saying we need to believe accusations, at least to the point of investigation and hearing. By changing the variable of who gets believed, we change the probability of who might accuse. 

 

I think *this* false accusation isn’t being broadcast because it was tossed out before it was taken seriously.  It was looked into and it was realized that it was false right from the get-go.  The person’s story didn’t make it in the news (or if it was, it was a tiny blip) and wasn’t brought up during the trial.  Until people started posting the article about it on FB, I’d never heard of that accuser, and I was reading and watching a lot about the Kavanaugh case.  It wasn’t much reported in the first place.  So..no reason to say, “That thing we never reported about because it was determined to be false...yup....still false.”  

18 hours ago, Quill said:

Well, that is not my perception at all. I knew about it even though I heard virually no news outlets on BK, only what was discussed here and on FB. It was the whole reason some people started to wonder about Kavanaugh, because it was (meant to) show a pattern of behaviour. Most people, myself included, did not feel Ford’s accusation (alone) amounted to much. Drunk teenager in the 80s forced himself on her and acted as though he might rape her. As I said in the thread, a lot of us had similar stories and don’t think that makes a case against a person’s character now. It was corroborating stories, now admittedly false, which made people, myself included, say, “Ok, well wait a minute, though...if this was his behaviour multiple times there may be something that requires examination, here.” I submit that was the entire purpose of the false accusation(s). 

 

It was other cases that were corroborating Ford.  It was the person at the party where he exposed himself, and we were waiting to see if the woman who was represented by Avanatti was credible.  The accusation of rape in the car never saw the light of day and never did anything for or against Ford’s case, because no one talked about it. It was not brought up to corroborate Ford’s story.  You would not have heard about it and had your opinion swayed because of it...because you wouldn’t have known about it.  Since it was false, it was not brought up during the trial.

In this particular case, you asked why no one is talking about the false accusation.  That’s because that false accusation was seen to be false almost immediately and never brought to most people’s attention in the first place, so they’re not talking about it. 

With that said...false accusations ought to be discussed in general, sure.

[shawthorne44]

One thing I don't understand, and this is a question for those that still believed he did something.   

What is the basis of that?   There aren't any accusations left that haven't been retracted, don't have proof that it wasn't him, in that other people have admitted being the man/men accused, or don't pass the Alan Dershowitz Giggle Test.  
 

[Guest]

Quote

It was other cases that were corroborating Ford.  It was the person at the party where he exposed himself, and we were waiting to see if the woman who was represented by Avanatti was credible.  The accusation of rape in the car never saw the light of day and never did anything for or against Ford’s case, because no one talked about it. It was not brought up to corroborate Ford’s story.  You would not have heard about it and had your opinion swayed because of it...because you wouldn’t have known about it.  Since it was false, it was not brought up during the trial.

In this particular case, you asked why no one is talking about the false accusation.  That’s because that false accusation was seen to be false almost immediately and never brought to most people’s attention in the first place, so they’re not talking about it. 

 With that said...false accusations ought to be discussed in general, sure

From the Huffington Post article I linked in the OP, all of the accusations were either blatently false or were unsubstantiated. The article is even talking about Dr. ford’s allegation, but I’m not even focused on that, because that is the most contentious one, obviously. 

I definitely remember how news banners on the web or a blurb on TV would say, “A third woman has come forward in the Kavanaugh case...” and those secondary claims were discussed on this board as lending more credibility to Ford’s accusations, because it attempts to show a pattern of behavior, rather than a one-off “stupid teenager” moment. 

 

[Terabith]

The report from Huffington Post is saying that the Senate report concludes no evidence supports misconduct allegations.  The Senate investigation was not exactly unbiased or unlimited in scope.  It doesn't mean that there's any evidence that Dr. Ford's claim was false, just what the Senate investigation concluded.  

[Garga]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

One thing I don't understand, and this is a question for those that still believed he did something.   

What is the basis of that?   There aren't any accusations left that haven't been retracted, don't have proof that it wasn't him, in that other people have admitted being the man/men accused, or don't pass the Alan Dershowitz Giggle Test.  
 

 

Can you clarify about the people admitting to being the ones accused?  I heard that men came forward saying they were the ones who assaulted Ford, and they were also discovered to be nutcases and dismissed, like the woman who said K raped her in the car. People often will come forward and say they are guilty when they’re not in high-profile cases.  Police are always having to deal with that.

There was no way that Ford could have had proof of what happened, so that boils down to he said she said.  Some people find her more credible than K and vice versa.  So, some people absolutely do believe that Ford wasn’t lying and therefore K did do something that he either doesn’t want to admit to or doesn’t remember because he was too drunk to.  

Reasons to believe Ford wasn’t lying:  she acted in the classic way that victims act (running away and not telling anyone).  She talked about it in counselling a few years ago, so we know she didn’t make it up on the fly just to discredit K.  She didn’t want to go public with it at all. 

[ktgrok]

11 hours ago, SKL said:

So yes, I think the punishment for false accusation should be severe even if the person does not end up in prison.

But what are we calling false accusation? Do you mean the woman who has admitted she lied? She really played little to no role in the drama that unfolded around BK, despite her efforts. What happened to him was about, for all intents/purposes, what Dr. Ford said. Are you saying she falsely accused him? That she should be punished? Seriously asking. Because wouldn't you need proof she lied, versus her just not being able to prove it happened? OR do you think anyone who makes allegations that can't be proven should be considered a false accuser and punished?

[Garga]

38 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Now, this I hadn't heard.  I had heard they were interviewed, but nothing else.  Do you have a link that explains this? 

 

I don't believe Ford was lying.  But, I do struggle with understanding why people are CONVINCED that Kavanaugh did exactly what she said.  

*She has stated that she has gaps in her memory.  They are PERFECTLY understandable, but that just makes OTHER memory mistakes understandable, especially given that we now know how faulty the human memory can be...and especially with the length of time.  

*She has named a person as an eyewitness, which....having someone to name is actually pretty rare for this sort of thing.  And yet, this person she named as having actually viewed the actual assault.....says he has never seen such a thing.

*She has named several people who were present at the party/social gathering.  Yet, every single one of them says that they don't remember ever having participated in such a gathering.

*He, for whatever bizarre reason, has calendars that basically show his entire schedule for the timeframe she claims this happens.  Has anyone ever doubted these calendars to be true representations of his schedule for that time frame?  I have understood these to be unquestioned by anyone, so if that's the case, then he has actual documentation that a party such as she described did not actually take place.  

 

I can understand believing that she is a victim of something....I believe she is a victim of SOMETHING.  What I don't understand is how all the facts present don't create doubt (reasonable or more) in most people, that Kavanaugh committed a crime.  It doesn't have to be either she's lying OR he committed a crime.  

 

Here’s an article about how the confessors to the crime were dismissed::: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408736-graham-dismisses-two-men-who-claim-ford-may-have-kavanaugh-for-them

Kavanaugh did not want to talk about his whole calendar.  He pointed towards only a few dates.  But someone else questioned him during the trial about dates he wasn’t talking about.  It came out that there was an event on his calendar that was just as Ford described.  The people she said were there, were there.  Here’s an article about that: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford

I found it super fishy that Kavanaugh didn’t bring that event up, being that it was there in black and white in his own handwriting that the young men in the gathering she described were right there on his calendar.

Who is the man you are saying was an eyewitness?  Mark Judge?  He was K’s best friend and also involved in the assault—laughing about it and then jumping on top of K and Ford, twice.  If he said that he saw it, he would be accusing himself of aiding or committing a crime.  

For me, I do believe the gathering she described happened, because it’s on K’s calendar.  The other people there would have forgotten it through the years that have passed because it was just a boring little gathering.  Only Ford would have it seared into her memory.

So...I still do believe that she is credible.  Nothing has come up that makes me think she isn’t.  Provable, no.  Is something done 35 years ago as a drunk teen enough to deny someone being a SC judge in the future?  Debatable.  But you asked why people would still believe her, and from my point of view, I wonder why they wouldn’t at least have to take her accusations very seriously.

ETA: fixed my 2nd link

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garga

[SKL]

34 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

But what are we calling false accusation? Do you mean the woman who has admitted she lied? She really played little to no role in the drama that unfolded around BK, despite her efforts. What happened to him was about, for all intents/purposes, what Dr. Ford said. Are you saying she falsely accused him? That she should be punished? Seriously asking. Because wouldn't you need proof she lied, versus her just not being able to prove it happened? OR do you think anyone who makes allegations that can't be proven should be considered a false accuser and punished?

As I said in my very first post in this thread, the person prosecuted for falsely accusing another person would have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard applied in a criminal rape case.

You can prove it in various ways, at least part of the time.  For example, where a time and location of the alleged crime are given but there is proof that one party or the other was nowhere near there at that time.  Or by credible statements of contemporaries and/or contemporaneous documentation strongly indicating that the story was made up.  Or by the individual eventually admitting it herself.

ETA none of my comments are intended to imply Ms. Ford is guilty of this crime, though she may be.  I am talking in general about whether false accusations should be prosecuted as a crime. 

In general, crime requires intent or at least gross negligence.  It would not include a person honestly making a mistake.  Though as a matter of human decency, one hopes people don't make accusations without giving a damn whether or not they are true.

Edited November 6, 2018 by SKL

[EmseB]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

But what are we calling false accusation? Do you mean the woman who has admitted she lied? She really played little to no role in the drama that unfolded around BK, despite her efforts. What happened to him was about, for all intents/purposes, what Dr. Ford said. 

 

Resources from the United States Senate were used to investigate her claims.

At least two major news outlets counted her claim as an accusation against K in order to bolster the case that he had a pattern of bad behavior towards women.

What happened to him was not just about what Dr. Ford said. Senators read the other accusations into the record and questioned K about them.

The woman said she did it because of attention seeking and because she was angry.

The people claiming now the false accusation was inconsequential are the same people who were touting the fact that he had multiple accusers and a pattern of behavior when all of this was going on. And that doesn't even get into the Ramirez or Swetnick circus. "What happened to him" was about establishing the man as a serial sexual offender during high school and college. If that was not the case, every single one of these women including Ford would have come forward during the actual nomination process or, heck, years earlier when K was nominated and investigated for any number of other high profile positions.  And the only reason Dr. Ford's allegation looks even slightly credible now is because of how outlandish the other claims turned out to be and the only thing Dr. Ford herself has ever been certain about the entire time is the identity of the people involved, all of whom say that what she says happened didn't happen or that they don't ever remember an event as she describes.

I can't speak about Dr. Ford or her motivations, but I definitely think certain senators should be taken to task for how this was handled, both on behalf of Dr. Ford and K and his family. Not one person has come up with any good reason why the allegation was handled the way it was other than shameless political maneuvering as a last minute attempt to derail the nomination.

[Garga]

22 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Thank you for the first article.  I hadn't seen that.

Your second link is unfortunately the same as the first, I assume a cut and paste error.

I had read that there was an even that included SOME of the people she said were there, but did not include either her or her best friend.

I understand that Judge was his best friend.  But....no, he didn't participate.  And it seems that in regards to Judge, that's a real He Said/She Said, because that seems to be a real matter of who people BELIEVE is right.  

 

 

But, again, to the bolded, I am actually NOT questioning why people believe her.  What I am questioning is why people have no doubts that Kavanaugh committed a crime.  And that...............that is a very different question.  

I fixed the link.  Here it is again, if you're interested:  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford

What do you mean Judge didn't participate?  I'm not being argumentative.  I'm just not clear on what you're saying.  It is a he-said/she-said, so does that mean you believe what he said when you say "no he didn't participate?"  You do not believe he was in the room at all and therefore wasn't watching and laughing and jumped on the bed, as Ford said?  Is it that you think her memory is wrong and that someone was there, but not Judge?

Please know that my tone in responding to all this is mostly academic.  I'm dispassionately sharing what I had heard in the news and am just curious about what you have heard and what your point of view is.

Also, for your last question:  are you asking why people are completely, 100% SURE that Kavanaugh is guilty?  I suppose I can't quite answer that.  I mostly believe he did what Ford said because of all the reasons I've outlined above (the drinking, the counselling she had, the calendar entry).  If 1 is "I believe he's 100% innocent" and 10 is "I believe he's 100% guilty", then I'm a 6 or 7.  

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garga

[Garga]

16 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 

I can't speak about Dr. Ford or her motivations, but I definitely think certain senators should be taken to task for how this was handled, both on behalf of Dr. Ford and K and his family. Not one person has come up with any good reason why the allegation was handled the way it was other than shameless political maneuvering as a last minute attempt to derail the nomination.

Now this I certainly agree with.  Ford was horribly used by politicians.  She wanted this to come out well before Kavanaugh was officially named and it seems that she thought it would never garner attention in the press.  It seems that she thought that the FBI or someone would talk to her about it, quietly; if she was believed, then Kavanaugh would be rejected as a possible candidate and everyone would move on to investigating the next candidate, if she wasn't believed, then oh well, she'd go on with her life; end of story.  The fact that it became public in the way it did at the time it did, most certainly seemed to be political maneuvering to make this as noisy as possible for political reasons; not to protect Ford, not to help women, and not out of any real sense of looking for truth or justice.  It was sickening.  

I do mostly believe Ford.  I don't know if what happened all those years ago should count against K now.  As it was unfolding, I was very concerned about how this opens a huge door for false accusations to start flying.  The accusations that were false are so damaging to people who actually have been assaulted. The whole thing was a circus.  

Edited November 6, 2018 by Garga

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, Garga said:

 

It was other cases that were corroborating Ford.  I

two of those "other cases" have already been proven to be false.  One fell apart upon further examination, the other  (jane doe) retracted her statement and said it was false.

eta: and two men have come forward and said it was probably them (as has been previously mentioned in this thread.)

Edited November 6, 2018 by gardenmom5