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?

[AgnosticBoy]

But the main point I'm trying to convey is that Ford should be judged independently of Kavanaugh. Credible testimony should be given the benefit of the doubt, and assumed to be probably speaking truth - conveying facts. That is the right message to send to other people who have been crime victims, because otherwise we're telling them their stories will not be believed unless they have corroborating evidence. That also tells perpetrators how they can get away with anything.

I can accept some of what you 're saying but at the same time we don't want people thinking they can just make any accusation and be judged as credible, as well. Imagine if some woman accused you of sexual assault and she offered no evidence beyond just her word. I can see a lot of people abusing that, especially when politics, power, and money are at play.

At least in the Kavanaugh's case, there is evidence to support his side in that Dr. Ford's primary witnesses do not corroborate her story as she tried to claim that they would in calling them "witnesses".

[fredonly]

I can accept some of what you 're saying but at the same time we don't want people thinking they can just make any accusation and be judged as credible, as well.

I agree. In Ford's case, many of us found her verbal testimony sufficiently compelling to be credible. That said, I would not be able to convict him of a criminal charge, because I have a reasonable doubt he did it. These positions are consistent.

At least in the Kavanaugh's case, there is evidence to support his side in that Dr. Ford's primary witnesses do not corroborate her story as she tried to claim that they would in calling them "witnesses".

The absence of corroboration is not evidence in favor of Kavanaugh - it is neutral. The absence of corroboration is relevant to affirming Kavanaugh's appointment, but it shouldn't be considered evidence that Ford is lying or mistaken either. We really can't know if it happened or not. Because we can't know, it would be inappropriate for Kavanaugh to suffer. And because we can't know, it would be inappropriate for Ford to suffer.

I don't think you're right that Ford claimed the witnesses would support her accusation. Can you provide a link to a quotation of hers where she said this?

[AgnosticBoy]

I don't think you're right that Ford claimed the witnesses would support her accusation. Can you provide a link to a quotation of hers where she said this?

The very definition of "witness" has to do someone who saw something. She said witnesses were present at the location where the attempted assault took place. By definition, that would mean that they (particularly Mark Judge) saw her being assaulted. Yet all of her witnesses do not support her claim. If they were there as she claims, then they would've witnessed the assault.

[fredonly]

I don't think you're right that Ford claimed the witnesses would support her accusation. Can you provide a link to a quotation of hers where she said this?

The very definition of "witness" has to do someone who saw something. She said witnesses were present at the location where the attempted assault took place. By definition, that would mean that they (particularly Mark Judge) saw her being assaulted. Yet all of her witnesses do not support her claim. If they were there as she claims, then they would've witnessed the assault.

You're reading things into her words that were not said. She specifically said Mark Judge was the only "witness" to the assault other than Kavanaugh. Others would only have witnessed that there had been a gathering that included the principles. So there's really no problem with what she said, and there's no evidence she lied. Don't conflate data that is merely consistent with lying with evidence of lying. The data is also consistent with her telling the truth.

[AgnosticBoy]

You're reading things into her words that were not said. She specifically said Mark Judge was the only "witness" to the assault other than Kavanaugh. Others would only have witnessed that there had been a gathering that included the principles. So there's really no problem with what she said, and there's no evidence she lied. Don't conflate data that is merely consistent with lying with evidence of lying. The data is also consistent with her telling the truth.

Scientifically-speaking, we will never know the truth. Even legally speaking, we may never know the truth since so much time has pass. So all that we're left with are "words" - his against hers. You're trying to paint mere "words" as being credible which is no different than Christians believing all of the claims of the Bible without any corroborating evidence. If I tell a consistent story then does that automatically make it true or should it be accepted? How would you then know if I made it up? Believe me I can make myself sound very credible given that I have time to rehearse my lines or I come up with details that can't be disproven if so much time has passed and only I was present.

Lets get on to the witnesses now.

You claim that I'm reading into her words but I'm simply using logical deduction. Dr. Ford mentioned that others (witnesses) were at the location the night of the incident, i.e., her friends, Mark Judge, and the assailant. Her lifelong friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, would not have witnessed the attack but she would've witnessed Bret Kavanaugh at least being at the party. Yet, Ms. Keyser's attorney wrote the following,

"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics ... index.html

If Mrs. Keyser was at the party, she would've noticed Kavanaugh. What about all of the others at the party? Why hasn't anyone of them come forward to even connect Kavanaugh to the scene? Do you agree that people at that party would've at least been witnesses to Kavanaugh being at a party with the suspect?

Mark Judge, who Dr. Ford claims was in the room where attempted assault took place does not corroborate her story. Just his being there would qualify him as a "witness" along with all the others at the party.

[fredonly]

You claim that I'm reading into her words but I'm simply using logical deduction.

Your "deduction" is based on the premise that Ford is lying. Examine the facts with the alternate premise, that she's telling the truth. Then we deduce: 1) Mrs Keyser just doesn't remember the gathering 2) Mark Judge wouldn't be expected to tell the truth because he is equally implicated 3) Only 1 other people was named by Ford: PJ Smyth - and he does not remember the gathering. 4) The other attendees didn't know Ford at the time, and would naturally not remember an unremarkable gathering that she happened to be at.

Scientifically-speaking, we will never know the truth. Even legally speaking, we may never know the truth since so much time has pass.

It's neither science nor the law, it's epistemology. We don't know what happened, and the facts are consistent with both possibilities. You label yourself "AgnosticBoy" - so why not be agnostic about THIS?

Virtually everyone picks someone to believe, then interprets the data in a way that supports that view. That should tell you something.

BOTH sides deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[rikuoamero]

[quote="rikuoamero]

God forbid a man express some frustration at having his name slandered in what amounts to a kangaroo court all with no evidence and plenty of people believe the accusations

And god forbid that a woman who has been sexually assaulted be condemned , threatened, mocked, and scorned for making an accusation. Just think the message that is being sent to all women who were sexually assaulted.[/quote]

Has she been sexually assaulted? Are you one of the people that believe wahmen simply because they're wahmen?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 10 by fredonly]

There's zero evidence she lied about having a fear of flying. You seem to have a misconception that having a fear of flying implies the person would never fly.

Well then colour me surprised because that's what I and plenty of others thought a person with a fear of flying would have done! I've had fears and even a couple of phobias throughout my life - I once had a phobia of dogs and you know what I did? I went out of my way to avoid dogs. Couldn't stand them. If I saw a dog on the street, I'd walk miles out of my way to avoid it.

If you're drawing a conclusion about her based on this, you should research it. Not only is her behavior consistent with a fear of flying, but friends of hers have attested to it, and noted that she takes medication to control her panic when flying.

So why then did she have the hearing delayed a week, if she apparently has no trouble flying?

Having selective memory is common with assault victims, so that has zero bearing. Except for Kavanaugh and Judge (the alleged perpetrators), no one else was aware of the incident. An absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of lying.

Zero bearing? So she can point a finger, cry "Rape!" and doesn't even have to remember when or where it happened?

For other attendees, it was just one gathering among many during their high school years - so it's hardly surprising they'd forget one that wasn't notable to them. These issues aren't evidence that her claims are false, they are simply a lack of evidence that they are true. An absence of evidence doesn't tip the scales in either direction

Ford was the one who said these other people could back up her claims. They didn't. Therefore, what she said is false.

Judge her independently of Kavanaugh.

I cannot and I strongly urge people not to do what you suggest, because to judge her and believe her here is to implicate a third party, Kavanaugh, as being guilty. IF you judge her independently, and come to the conclusion that she's telling the truth, then guess what? You now believe Kavanaugh to have raped/sexually abused her.

They deserve to be believed. Not to the point that an accusation should be sufficient to send a man to jail

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.

and perhaps not even enough to deny someone a promotion (although that's debatable).

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.

Be fair to both of them,

Which is what I've done, and what I think you have not done. You've said she should be believed, which necessarily entails believing Kavanaugh is guilty.

neither deserves to be treated as a liar.

Even when her story falls apart?

Treating Ford that way serves to give carte blanche to others to commit assault - as long as no one else is around when they do it.

Wrong. Simply wrong. What Ford did, under the hypothetical situation where she was abused, was to wait THIRTY SIX YEARS to accuse her attacker, and then only as part of a hearing to decide if he's going to SCOTUS, and then drop the charges once that fails.
How are hypothetical sexual assaulters going to be emboldened to attack now? Are they going to think to themselves "My victim is definitely going to wait three or four decades to accuse me, guess this means I can do whatever I want!"?

[AgnosticBoy]

Your "deduction" is based on the premise that Ford is lying. Examine the facts with the alternate premise, that she's telling the truth. Then we deduce: 1) Mrs Keyser just doesn't remember the gathering 2) Mark Judge wouldn't be expected to tell the truth because he is equally implicated 3) Only 1 other people was named by Ford: PJ Smyth - and he does not remember the gathering. 4) The other attendees didn't know Ford at the time, and would naturally not remember an unremarkable gathering that she happened to be at.

My position is that we should hold "no" belief towards Dr. Ford's accusation as opposed to having a belief or disbelief.'

Your #1 point assumes that there was a gathering. No one remembers a gathering except for Dr. Ford. I think that would raise some suspicion in the minds of any reasonable person.

[fredonly]

[Replying to post 10 by fredonly]

There's zero evidence she lied about having a fear of flying. You seem to have a misconception that having a fear of flying implies the person would never fly.

Well then colour me surprised because that's what I and plenty of others thought a person with a fear of flying would have done! ...

...
So why then did she have the hearing delayed a week, if she apparently has no trouble flying?

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.

[

Having selective memory is common with assault victims, so that has zero bearing. Except for Kavanaugh and Judge (the alleged perpetrators), no one else was aware of the incident. An absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of lying.

Zero bearing? So she can point a finger, cry "Rape!" and doesn't even have to remember when or where it happened?

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:

A door opens and a police officer is suddenly staring at the wrong end of a gun. In a split second, his brain is hyper-focused on that gun. It is very likely that he will not recall any of the details that were irrelevant to his immediate survival: Did the shooter have a moustache? What color was the shooter’s hair? What was the shooter wearing?

The officer’s reaction is not a result of poor training. It’s his brain reacting to a life-threatening situation just the way it is supposed to—just the way the brain of a rape victim reacts to an assault. In the aftermath, the officer may be unable to recall many important details. He may be uncertain about many. He may be confused about many. He may recall some details inaccurately. Simultaneously, he will recall certain details – the things his brain focused on – with extraordinary accuracy. He may well never forget them. All of this, too, is the human brain working the way it was designed to work.

For other attendees, it was just one gathering among many during their high school years - so it's hardly surprising they'd forget one that wasn't notable to them. These issues aren't evidence that her claims are false, they are simply a lack of evidence that they are true. An absence of evidence doesn't tip the scales in either direction

Ford was the one who said these other people could back up her claims. They didn't. Therefore, what she said is false.

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.

Judge her independently of Kavanaugh.

I cannot and I strongly urge people not to do what you suggest, because to judge her and believe her here is to implicate a third party, Kavanaugh, as being guilty. IF you judge her independently, and come to the conclusion that she's telling the truth, then guess what? You now believe Kavanaugh to have raped/sexually abused her.

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.

They deserve to be believed. Not to the point that an accusation should be sufficient to send a man to jail

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.

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. Maintain epistemological humility - the available information is insufficient to establish what (if anything) actually happened. You admitted we can't know what happened, so instead of giving lip service to this - let it define your position.

and perhaps not even enough to deny someone a promotion (although that's debatable).

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?

Condemning the tactics of the Democrats is fair game, but none of their actions have bearing on the truth of what happened. 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. The politics was dirty on both sides, but it's time to get beyond that.

I've even heard news that Ford is not pursuing the charges. Colour me surprised at that /sarcasm.

You're prejudice is showing. All of your arguments are based on interpreting the facts based on the premise she's lying. I demonstrated that the facts can also be interpreted with the assumption she is telling the truth.

neither deserves to be treated as a liar.

Even when her story falls apart?

You haven't shown that. Your position is based on ignorance (ignorance of what to expect from a victim of assault and ignorance of what to expect from someone with a fear of flying), and rationalizing the facts to your presumption of lying.

Treating Ford that way serves to give carte blanche to others to commit assault - as long as no one else is around when they do it.

Wrong. Simply wrong. What Ford did, under the hypothetical situation where she was abused, was to wait THIRTY SIX YEARS to accuse her attacker, and then only as part of a hearing to decide if he's going to SCOTUS, and then drop the charges once that fails.

That's another mischaracterization. She didn't drop charges - she never filed any. 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. Again, ATTEMPT to consider what she did under the premise she's telling the truth. You seem incapable of doing that.

How are hypothetical sexual assaulters going to be emboldened to attack now? Are they going to think to themselves "My victim is definitely going to wait three or four decades to accuse me, guess this means I can do whatever I want!"?

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