Post by JohnGavin Post by Herman Post by Andrew Clarke
I'm not blaming the victim.
I'm just dubious about whether there was a victim at all, and if so,
who was the perpetrator. I'm wondering about the veracity of' Dr
Ford's sudden and politically convenient total recall of something
that happened at a boozy party thirty years ago. Proust, after all,
is fiction. And Dr Ford does come from Southern California.
Obviously she does not "come from" SoCal, otherwise she wouldn't have
been at the party where she was held down by Kavanaugh. Like him she
hails from DC.
There's such an extensive literature about why victims of sexual
harassment or abuse take years to find a way to voice what happened,
and one of the reasons is guys like you, who immediately, reflexively
come up with "Oh, well she's from southern california, so who am I
going to believe? Her or a guy whose nr 1, 2 and 3 topics of
conversation are are beer.
Speaking of which, Kavanaugh scored a great point when asking Senator
Klobuchar whether she liked beer, too. 1) you don't ask questions
from his chair. 2) Klobuchar's dad used to be an alcoholic.
My strong impression of those proceedings were that Dr. Ford was
truthful - that recalling the incident was extremely painful for her,
and that the Supreme Court candidate betrayed his lies by his nervous,
quirky and unnatural behavior. He came across as a middle aged frat
boy with arrested development syndrome.
You are entitled to your opinion. The fact remains that she could have
been acting or delusional. And he could have reacted as he did out of
fear or anxiety. It's impossible to know in a he said/she said
situation. Were more accusers to come forward, the case against
Kavanaugh would have been strengthened. They didn't. The question is,
should an accused person be judged guilty, even in one person's mind, on
such evidence? Should a person be disqualified for a job or office on
such a basis? Our justice system seems to say not. It takes evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you think that is, and why should
that approach not apply in civil situations?
Where I used to work, in he said/she said situations (i.e. an
investigation turned up to corborating evidence) the accused was told
that he had been accused and that guilt or innocence could not be
established. He was basically told, "Sorry about this if you are
innocent, but if proof comes along, you will be disciplined." The
accuser was informed of this as well. It may be natural to think that
no way would a woman accuse a man of abuse if he hadn't done it, for
various reasons. But we have cases of verified false accusations on
record, so it does happen. It even happened once where I worked. There
was another case where the accusation was partially true but severely
exaggerated. It just seems to me that the accused ought to have some
so. I'm with you.