Presumption of Innocence vs Presumption of Lying

[fredonly]

Republican supporters of Brett Kavanaugh have argued that he deserves a presumption of innocence. An accusation should not be treated as proof of guilt. I agree with this sentiment.

But isn't it equally inappropriate to assume an accusation is a lie unless proven true?

[DeMotts]

Explain to me how this works. Explain to me please how one believes a woman's accusation that another man rapes her, but not to the point that that man goes to jail.

Doesn't this statement imply that nobody in the history of crimes committed with a witness present has ever gotten away with said crime?

Surely you can't think that every single guilty person witnessed doing something criminal has been jailed. A threshold of evidence must be passed to convict in a court of law. I can believe Dr. Ford and still think that it's not nearly enough to pursue a criminal charge against Kavanaugh.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by fredonly]

The situation demonstrates that if there's an absence of corroboration, there will be sufficient reasons to dismiss the accusation.

...This is what is supposed to happen. Someone accuses someone else of a crime, and unless the accusation is corroborated, then it gets dropped, because surprise surprise, people don't go to jail (or ought to go to jail) simply because they are accused!

That's another mischaracterization. She didn't drop charges - she never filed any.

Then there's nothing for Kavanaugh to defend himself against. Hitchen's Razor and all that.

There's no reason to doubt her intentions were anything other than what she said they were: to present some information that might be of use

Except that she did it only during a time of appointment to SCOTUS, which is an intensely political situation.

Again, ATTEMPT to consider what she did under the premise she's telling the truth. You seem incapable of doing that.

I did, and when her story had zero corroboration, I found myself unable to pass judgement against Kavanaugh. It's similar to my arguments against Christianity - for example, the Gospels were written years/decades after the events in question.

You are under the false impression that everyone with a fear flying will never fly. Tom Bunn is the founder of SOAR, a program to help people who have a fear of flying. As he explains:
flying on an airplane despite having flight anxiety is a common practice, according to Tom Bunn, a former airline captain who’s now a licensed therapist. Bunn, who works with those afraid to fly through a program called SOAR, said that one in three people have a fear of flying. Of that third, half are willing to fly, while half are not. Of the people who come to him for help, very few outright refuse to fly when doing so is clearly necessary, he says.- from this article.

This only helps my own argument. If apparently those with a fear of flying are able to fly with help...then what was stopping Ford from flying?

What is normal for a victim of a traumatic event? Do they always remember all the details? [url=http://time.com/3625414/rape-trauma-brain-memory/]Here is an article that indicates some forgetfulness is to be expected:

I accept what the article you link to says...but this doesn't mean that we should just give a bye to accusations. We shouldn't consider the accused guilty of the crime simply because the accuser hyper-focused on some details and forgot the rest.
Since Ford couldn't give us a time or place, couldn't even tell us how she got home after the alleged incident, or if she left her friend at the alleged party...how am I supposed to take from that that Kavanaugh is guilty?

You seem to be looking for excuses to consider her a liar, and this one is quite a stretch. That's not exactly what she said, but clearly she had no way of knowing what, if anything, those people might remember.

I didn't call her a liar in that part. I said that what she said about these people backing her up is false.

You advocate a false dichotomy. You correctly observed that we can't know what happened. If we can't know, then we ought to reserve judgment and implicate neither.

Okay, we, as in people of 2018, cannot know what happened that day (whatever day it was) in that place (whatever place it was). So we consider Kavanaugh not guilty. We then turn to the accuser and look at what she has said.
I consider her request for a week's delay due to a fear of flying to be an attempt at some sort of deception, because as you yourself said, those with fear of flying are able to do just that, albeit with help.

Here's how: Individually give each the benefit of the doubt. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt does not entail wholesale acceptance that they are accurately conveying the facts. It means treating each of them individually AS IF they are telling the truth.

If I treat Ford as if she is telling the truth, this necessitates that I believe Kavanaugh is guilty. Ford claims Kavanaugh and others sexually assaulted her. To treat that as though it were truth, is well...to treat Kavanaugh as having done sexual assault!
If I treat Kavanaugh as not guilty, this necessitates that the claims Ford is making are unsubstantiated.

Condemning the tactics of the Democrats is fair game, but none of their actions have bearing on the truth of what happened.

It's something to keep in mind though. It's not something that can just be ignored.
Politics is a very dirty game.

When you treat it as pertinent to the facts, you demonstrate you're playing the same game, but for the opposing team - it's parrotting what the Republican leadership said.

I'm in Ireland, and not a member of, or supporter, of the US Republican party. And it's not just Republican leadership who bring up the point Ford waited until Kavanaugh's nomination for SCOTUS to accuse him of sexual assault - plenty of non-Republicans did too.

You're prejudice is showing. All of your arguments are based on interpreting the facts based on the premise she's lying.

Someone who is telling the truth, who wants to pursue the truth, in a legal context, does not (or ought not) to only tell the truth as part of a political game, and then drop it once political expediency is no longer viable.
If Ford actually WAS abused by Kavanaugh, then she ought to actually, ya know, press charges. Take him to court, let him have an actual trial, instead of doing so that (from what I can see) was only so as to delay or prevent him from being appointed to the Supreme Court. Since he's now been appointed, she's now no longer pursuing her claims.
That gives a very strong indication to me that all of this was a political farce.

[AgnosticBoy]

I can believe Dr. Ford and still think that it's not nearly enough to pursue a criminal charge against Kavanaugh.

I agree with you in general. Considering Dr. Ford's case independently from criminal charges, I still don't see that she has a credible or believable case. Her claim is just as credible as me claiming that you stole my wallet 36 years ago without any corroborating evidence.

[fredonly]

[Replying to post 20 by fredonly]

The situation demonstrates that if there's an absence of corroboration, there will be sufficient reasons to dismiss the accusation.

...This is what is supposed to happen. Someone accuses someone else of a crime, and unless the accusation is corroborated, then it gets dropped, because surprise surprise, people don't go to jail (or ought to go to jail) simply because they are accused!

I agree completely.

That's another mischaracterization. She didn't drop charges - she never filed any.

Then there's nothing for Kavanaugh to defend himself against. Hitchen's Razor and all that.

There's nothing for him to defend NOW, but there was something to defend during the confirmation. There's a prescribed standard of proof in a criminal trial (innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), but no such standard in a Senate confirmation. My personal view was that he should not be confirmed because there was a pretty good chance he'd committed the assault, although I also had a reasonable doubt that he'd done it. So I couldn't convict him were I on a jury, but the cloud of suspicion was heavy enough to withhold confirming him.

There's no reason to doubt her intentions were anything other than what she said they were: to present some information that might be of use

Except that she did it only during a time of appointment to SCOTUS, which is an intensely political situation.

That's not correct. She brought up the assault in 2012 during couples therapy; in 2016 she told Keith Koegler she'd been assaulted "by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, DC" and clarified to him on June 29, 2018 that it was Kavanaugh; and she told Adela Gildo-Mazzon about it in June 2013. (see this article: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ma ... rd-ramirez).

Again, ATTEMPT to consider what she did under the premise she's telling the truth. You seem incapable of doing that.

I did, and when her story had zero corroboration, I found myself unable to pass judgement against Kavanaugh.

You're treating zero corroboration as proof to the contrary. It's not, it just means there is less evidence that he did it. We agree that makes it insufficient evidence that he committed a crime. There's room to disagree about whether the evidence was sufficiently strong to vote against confirmation.

This only helps my own argument. If apparently those with a fear of flying are able to fly with help...then what was stopping Ford from flying?

She discussed this in her testimony. She preferred not to fly, and was hoping to avoid it.

I accept what the article you link to says...but this doesn't mean that we should just give a bye to accusations. We shouldn't consider the accused guilty of the crime simply because the accuser hyper-focused on some details and forgot the rest.
Since Ford couldn't give us a time or place, couldn't even tell us how she got home after the alleged incident, or if she left her friend at the alleged party...how am I supposed to take from that that Kavanaugh is guilty?

I didn't say you should consider him guilty. I said you should not consider her a liar. You're treating this as a dichotomy between Kavanaugh guilty+Ford lying OR Kavanaugh innocent+Ford telling truth. I'm arguing that there's insufficent evidence to draw definitive conclusions.

You advocate a false dichotomy. You correctly observed that we can't know what happened. If we can't know, then we ought to reserve judgment and implicate neither.

Okay, we, as in people of 2018, cannot know what happened that day (whatever day it was) in that place (whatever place it was). So we consider Kavanaugh not guilty. We then turn to the accuser and look at what she has said.
I consider her request for a week's delay due to a fear of flying to be an attempt at some sort of deception, because as you yourself said, those with fear of flying are able to do just that, albeit with help.

Her fear of flying had nothing to do with the scheduling of her testimony. Facts were mashed together by the media to paint that picture. This article explains this.

If I treat Ford as if she is telling the truth, this necessitates that I believe Kavanaugh is guilty. Ford claims Kavanaugh and others sexually assaulted her. To treat that as though it were truth, is well...to treat Kavanaugh as having done sexual assault!
If I treat Kavanaugh as not guilty, this necessitates that the claims Ford is making are unsubstantiated.

I'm just asking that you not treat Ford as a liar. Treat her position the same way you treat Kavanaugh: innocent until proven guilty. It is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied.

You're prejudice is showing. All of your arguments are based on interpreting the facts based on the premise she's lying.

Someone who is telling the truth, who wants to pursue the truth, in a legal context, does not (or ought not) to only tell the truth as part of a political game, and then drop it once political expediency is no longer viable.
If Ford actually WAS abused by Kavanaugh, then she ought to actually, ya know, press charges.

She didn't need to pursue the truth - she knew what was true. She made it clear she had no intention or desire to pursue this legally. You're judging her based on what you think she should have done, which seems a pretty unfair basis. Other than the fact that she is a registered Democrat, there's no evidence that any of her actions were politically motivated. You can FIT her actions into a political context, but that's not evidence of her intent.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 24 by fredonly]

There's a prescribed standard of proof in a criminal trial (innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), but no such standard in a Senate confirmation.

Why is there no such standard in a Senate confirmation? Isn't this then allowing people to accuse without them needing to have evidence/corroboration? Where is the spirit of a standard of proof, where is there a protection for the accused?

My personal view was that he should not be confirmed because there was a pretty good chance he'd committed the assault,

How did you figure there was a "pretty good chance"? Ford's testimony was lacking in crucial details, AND couldn't be backed up by those whom she claimed would have been able to back her up.

So I couldn't convict him were I on a jury, but the cloud of suspicion was heavy enough to withhold confirming him.

Is this a round-about way of saying you would have used the accusations of a crime as an excuse for you (where you on the committee) to not confirm him? An accusation that you are seemingly okay with not needing to be corroborated?

That's not correct. She brought up the assault in 2012 during couples therapy;

This isn't her pursuing criminal charges.

in 2016 she told Keith Koegler

I have no idea who this is, or why nothing was apparently done about the alleged assault at the time in 2016.

and clarified to him on June 29, 2018 that it was Kavanaugh; and she told Adela Gildo-Mazzon about it in June 2013.

Again, no idea who Mazzon is, and again, simply saying she was assaulted to what (looks to me at least) to be random people (who are they, reporters? Cops? What?) without trying to actually pursue legal charges only makes the fact she accused Kavanaugh during his SCOTUS proceedings look suspicious.

You're treating zero corroboration as proof to the contrary.

That, and the fact that there were things that were supposed to back her up, but didn't.
Your way, your logic, means that no-one can ever be called a liar.

We agree that makes it insufficient evidence that he committed a crime.

And yet, you would have voted against him, because of the accusation, for some reason, as you said.

She discussed this in her testimony. She preferred not to fly, and was hoping to avoid it.

And the prosecutor's memo reveals that her attorneys refused a private meeting/interview with investigators meeting her in California or wherever she was. This makes her initial refusal to fly, the pushing back of the hearing, look incredibly suspicious.

I didn't say you should consider him guilty. I said you should not consider her a liar. You're treating this as a dichotomy between Kavanaugh guilty+Ford lying OR Kavanaugh innocent+Ford telling truth. I'm arguing that there's insufficent evidence to draw definitive conclusions.

Need I remind you that you are not coming out of this squeaky clean either? You've admitted that you would have used the accusation as justification to vote against Kavanaugh. My own position on that is (if I were on the committee) is that I would have put the accusation out of my mind (since this isn't a criminal trial, and accusations do not belong in a Senate hearing) and consider Kavanaugh's professional record. I would have voted against him because of his stance against the Fourth Amendment.

Her fear of flying had nothing to do with the scheduling of her testimony. Facts were mashed together by the media to paint that picture. This article explains this.

First I've heard about supposed death threats. Also Grassley granted six extensions to Ford. Six.

She didn't need to pursue the truth - she knew what was true.

This is the mindset of a theist who "knows" God exists, and thus doesn't need to actually provide evidence that God exists, he can just pontificate on how wonderful God is, preach all day long.
Sorry pal (not you, this hypothetical theist), what you say you know to be true doesn't cut it for me. You're giving "Truth" status to something that you are admitting you don't know is true (now you, Fred).

She made it clear she had no intention or desire to pursue this legally.

An indication of a liar to me then. Rape is a legal concern, and you can't just waltz in, accuse someone of rape, then waltz right back out saying you never were going to press charges. This to me is an indication of someone who isn't concerned with showing something to be the truth, but is doing so for ulterior motives.
Given this, I hope Kavanaugh takes her to court for defamation of character, for slander and/or libel.

You're judging her based on what you think she should have done, which seems a pretty unfair basis.

God forbid she actually pursue criminal charges over an alleged crime...no no no, let's just allow her to accuse someone in a Senate hearing then walk away!

Other than the fact that she is a registered Democrat, there's no evidence that any of her actions were politically motivated.

The fact that Democrats and other opponents of Kavanaugh did not want him on SCOTUS, the fact she only publicly came to prominence during the committee hearing to determine him, and the fact she's apparently now going to go off into the sunset without taking Kavanaugh to court, and the fact that yourself and others like you would have used the accusations to vote against him...speaks highly of this being a dirty political tactic.

[AgnosticBoy]

That's not correct. She brought up the assault in 2012 during couples therapy; in 2016 she told Keith Koegler she'd been assaulted "by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, DC" and clarified to him on June 29, 2018 that it was Kavanaugh; and she told Adela Gildo-Mazzon about it in June 2013. (see this article: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ma ... rd-ramirez).

I wouldn't say that the assault was an issue only when politics came into play. I do consider it possible that blaming Kavanaugh (as opposed to the real assailant if she remembers correctly) for the assault may've been politically motivated. Based on what you said, it isn't until June 29, 2018 that we find Kavanaugh's name being used. It has been reported that the 2012 couples therapy notes do not mention Kavanaugh's name.

And please consider the counter-evidence that I brought up that involves actual WITNESSES being at the party, but yet none of them reported seeing Kavanaugh, especially seeing him assaulting anyone.

You're treating zero corroboration as proof to the contrary. It's not, it just means there is less evidence that he did it.

What evidence is there to begin with that points to Kavanaugh?

I didn't say you should consider him guilty. I said you should not consider her a liar. You're treating this as a dichotomy between Kavanaugh guilty+Ford lying OR Kavanaugh innocent+Ford telling truth. I'm arguing that there's insufficent evidence to draw definitive conclusions.

There is reason to suspect that she's lying or not remembering correctly. She brings up a party that no one corroborates. She said her best friend was there, Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others. Why would these witnesses remember parties from the past except for the one where she's assaulted? Makes no sense.

[AgnosticBoy]

My position is that given that this is a hearing to decide a promotion, then criminal accusations do not belong there, should not be aired. If Ford's accusations are not simply a tactic by Kavanaugh's political opponents to derail his promotion, then she could simply have accused him as one would anywhere else. Why wait thirty six years and do so NOT as part of a criminal trial?
I've even heard news that Ford is not pursuing the charges. Colour me surprised at that /sarcasm.

There is no doubt some politics were involved given the fact that all of the allegations came out around the same point of time that Kavanaugh was on his way to confirmation. It's easy to see through given that the more women that came out, the less credible or the more desperate their claims seemed. Take the Ramirez woman who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her, but then she claimed she couldn't remember if it was really him. Also consider the fact that the New York Times could not find any classmates to corroborate her story.

All of this seems like a concerted effort

[DeMotts]

I can believe Dr. Ford and still think that it's not nearly enough to pursue a criminal charge against Kavanaugh.

I agree with you in general. Considering Dr. Ford's case independently from criminal charges, I still don't see that she has a credible or believable case. Her claim is just as credible as me claiming that you stole my wallet 36 years ago without any corroborating evidence.

Well first off let's make it apples to apples - make the scenario that I violently assaulted you in the course of stealing your wallet. And if you had the guts to stand in front of the nation and basically ruin your own life to make that claim, with absolutely no benefit to yourself, and you did so in a composed and eloquent fashion with many details recalled and predictably some forgotten I think that people would listen.

And if by contrast I got up in front of the nation full of rage and said that I'd never even seen a wallet like yours before ever and claimed it was a conspiracy by the Clintons and that my life was ruined and that references to "the wallet game" in my yearbook was a drinking game yeah I think people would possibly find you credible.

[AgnosticBoy]

I can believe Dr. Ford and still think that it's not nearly enough to pursue a criminal charge against Kavanaugh.

I agree with you in general. Considering Dr. Ford's case independently from criminal charges, I still don't see that she has a credible or believable case. Her claim is just as credible as me claiming that you stole my wallet 36 years ago without any corroborating evidence.

Well first off let's make it apples to apples - make the scenario that I violently assaulted you in the course of stealing your wallet. And if you had the guts to stand in front of the nation and basically ruin your own life to make that claim, with absolutely no benefit to yourself, and you did so in a composed and eloquent fashion with many details recalled and predictably some forgotten I think that people would listen.

And if by contrast I got up in front of the nation full of rage and said that I'd never even seen a wallet like yours before ever and claimed it was a conspiracy by the Clintons and that my life was ruined and that references to "the wallet game" in my yearbook was a drinking game yeah I think people would possibly find you credible.

So not having a motive is evidence that I'm telling the truth? Did you consider that you don't know my motive and how that's not the same as not having one? It amazes me how people can fall for a passionate non-falsiable story(make up a story that can't be proven either way so no one gets in trouble but the allegation is still there!!). If you were as gullible towards Christian claims, then I'd bet there be a lot of atheists converting to Christianity by now!

Lets go through some of her potential motives.

Is it possible that she was paid? Yes. People lie to get money all of the time.

Is it possible that she didn't want Supreme Court to lean Conservative? Yes, it's about power and she'd be no different than many of the Democrats out there.

And unlike the woman who made false rape allegations (she went public) against the Duke Lacrosse team, the Demoracts pushed and pressured Dr. Ford to go even further to testify in front of the Senate. She did not want to do that at first!

So there goes two potential motives, that is, power and money. So all you're left with is believing her off of mere words surrounded by a hek of a lot of political pressure.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 28 by DeMotts]

And if by contrast I got up in front of the nation full of rage and said that I'd never even seen a wallet like yours before ever and claimed it was a conspiracy by the Clintons and that my life was ruined and that references to "the wallet game" in my yearbook was a drinking game yeah I think people would possibly find you credible.

You want apples to apples, but a claim of mugging, of stealing a wallet, is hardly at all in the same ballpark as sexual assault/rape. Granted it was AgnosticBoy who brought it up, but still...look at the amount of people who hate Kavanaugh, the actions they've taken to express their hatred of him and their belief in the accusation.
I can understand his frustration in his hearing.

And if you had the guts to stand in front of the nation and basically ruin your own life to make that claim, with absolutely no benefit to yourself,

Ford gets believed by millions of people, who chant "Believe women!" (who then later write articles chastising the white women who they say gave us Trump, all with nary a thought for the hypocrisy of their position). She gets victim bux.