No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by JDW70Wellwhynot on Sep 29, 2018 1:55:33 PM
Kavanaugh - Clearly guilty of a crime of sexual harassment

Why, because a woman claims it to be so.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
JDW70Wellwhynot - 29 Sep 2018 13:55:40 (#1 of 1071)

And every male among us could be subjected to a similar accusation.

The woman makes a convincing account of factors surrounding the assault, an emotional testimony to the trauma she has suffered because of it. And yet there is no evidence to corroborate her story.

The accused, on the other hand, denounces, vehemently, that there is no truth in what is claimed; that he doesn't know the woman, and to his knowledge, has never seen her before.

So who do we believe? What sways our sentiments to believe one side or the other? There are many things at play in these sort of circumstance: looks, tone of voice, dress, even. And these are only trivialities.

Many things start emerging from this beginning: evidence of various forms implicating stuff that may throw doubt on or confirm the veracity of the plaintive, or bring to bear on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

These are the things that are dealt with in a court of law and with which we will all be familiar. More often than not juries have to come to a decision on the strength of evidence. The truth has been determined. Or has it? On both sides there are many instances of verdicts being overturned, too late for some, sometimes.

The truth. But what is the truth? Will the accuser know, absolutely, as a fact, what happened to her did happen? How many questions does this raise: a dream, perhaps; false memory syndrome; an assault but by some other than the accused? The accuser is not lying since there is no question in her head that what took place actually did so.

And the accused, is he lying? Has his memory, conveniently for his conscience, blanked out the incident? Or did the incident take place when too much drink had erased all memory of the event. Is he a bear-face liar, is she a bear-faced liar? We don't know but draw our conclusions on the evidence which is sometimes supported by our prejudices.

I am a democrat (or would be in America)and was in disbelief at Trump's election. The last thing I would want is a panel of judges whose final decree is determined by right wing politics. I watched both testimonies as they took place. Ford's was an emotional, heartfelt account, though there were a number of things I felt the prosecution could have gone into in depth.

I winged during Kavanaugh testimony thinking, God, don't have him on any supreme court (and could you imagine that performance if he were your defense in a courtroom)?

Therefore, like all judges, our judgement of guilt or innocence must be impartial.

browserbutton - 29 Sep 2018 14:04:17 (#2 of 1071)

Is he a bear-face liar

I would say more weasel-faced.

Rendered - 29 Sep 2018 14:05:26 (#3 of 1071)

More of a lachrymose puffa fish.

Macpaddy - 29 Sep 2018 14:05:27 (#4 of 1071)

Kavanaugh Pooh poohed the whole thing.

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:13:00 (#5 of 1071)

They both can't be right. Simple.

JDW70Wellwhynot - 29 Sep 2018 14:16:21 (#6 of 1071)

But both could be wrong!

SheikYerbouti - 29 Sep 2018 14:19:57 (#7 of 1071)

The fans love a sockpuppet account to FEARLESSLY ICONOCLIZE. Show some balls, mystery poster, go on.

Tadagee - 29 Sep 2018 14:20:38 (#8 of 1071)

Therefore, like all judges, our judgement of guilt or innocence must be impartial.

In US and UK courts judges don't make determinations of guilt or innocence. Juries do.

Hth.

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:26:03 (#9 of 1071)

He was asked directly at least 8 or 9 times whether he'd support an FBI investigation and avoided a simple yes answer every time.

But I don't like Ford's squeaky, goody-goody little voice. I don't like the way she reverted most of the factual questions back to her own emotions. Anyone would think this happened last week, not 36 years ago.

I don't like the way she says she's 100% sure of what she says yet every single other person who was there in the room denies it ever happened.

I don't like the way she's claiming devastating traumatic victimhood but is a successful professor of psychology, married with children. She's also a Democrat.

Apparently, 36 years later, she's now a nervous wreck. I think not.

I don't like the way Kavanaugh grovels. As has been pointed out, he would do better answering factual questions directly and without equivocation and without emotive and irrelevant asides.

I find it hard to believe that America is run by senators who can't think straight and who function from conclusions. Their committee chairman is an ageing dotard who is dull and mechanical. He needs retiring.

Apart from all that, I haven't the slightest idea what the truth is. I do know this case can never be decided on opinion.

popstar7 - 29 Sep 2018 14:28:21 (#10 of 1071)

I only saw one nervous wreck on Thursday and it wasn't her.

GrrrIbdis - 29 Sep 2018 14:31:26 (#11 of 1071)

How bizarre, Niggler. Surely, you have seen people recall past trauma and get a resurgence of emotion, before? Interviews with WWI and WWII veterans frequently show it. Do you also doubt their testimony, because it is old, and despise them for their wavering voices, when they describe what they experienced?

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:33:35 (#12 of 1071)

After 36 years, yes. Unless they're strange. 36 years is a very long time.

GrrrIbdis - 29 Sep 2018 14:40:52 (#13 of 1071)

I take it you have just not seen it... there's nothing strange about it at all. Unless you are very, very young, I think it's quite 'strange' that you should never have witnessed that and that you dismiss it! 'Perverse' is the word that first springs to mind!

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:42:50 (#14 of 1071)

I have seen what you describe, soldiers breaking down in tears etc, but I've also seen holocaust victims, survivors of ghastly experiments and torture, recall their past with detachment and clarity.

A lot of water passes under the bridge in life. That's a lot of experience and memories supplant and replace others.

She was a teenager and now, after 36 years, it's like it only happened yesterday. I think her lawyer told her to milk it. They usually do.

Tadagee - 29 Sep 2018 14:44:34 (#15 of 1071)

Good old wotirekon.

Brunothecat - 29 Sep 2018 14:45:26 (#16 of 1071)

I have seen what you describe, soldiers breaking down in tears etc, but I've also seen holocaust victims, survivors of ghastly experiments and torture, recall their past with detachment and clarity.

So what's your point?

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:45:29 (#17 of 1071)

Don't forget I am not taking sides on this. I have no idea of what really happened. I just think both of them leave something to be desired.

popstar7 - 29 Sep 2018 14:46:22 (#18 of 1071)

I think her lawyer told her to milk it. They usually do.

Presumably her lawyer advised her to travel back in time six years and name Kavanaugh in a therapy session with her husband and therapist? They usually do.

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:46:30 (#19 of 1071)

So what's your point?



I've made my point. You're not reading it.

niggler - 29 Sep 2018 14:47:36 (#20 of 1071)

I'm aware that this isn't the first time she's talked about it. In that case she should be used to talking about it!

Do you get that? Maybe you get emotional the first or second time. After a while that stops. It should, it's natural. Either that or she's a real mess and the therapy was utterly useless and only served to keep it alive.

And I repeat, every single other person who was in the room denies this happened. Including her best friend.

What do you say to that?

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » USA