How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[Loren Pechtel]

The number of accusers is a bit of a red herring; what matters is the strength of the evidence. Is there corroboration? Certainly there have been instances where there is no accuser - the victim was murdered, but there is physical evidence of sexual assault. As is oft stated, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. To leave it just to the accusation, without more, is to return to witch trials.

Except we have evidence, just not direct evidence. Ford made a bunch of statements about the situation which were able to be checked. While they don't prove an assault they prove her story is not simply made up. For her to have remembered those details makes it pretty certain something very memorable happened at that party.

Ordinary parties rarely include highly memorable things outside the sexual realm--assault and losing one's virginity are the two biggies. If it were the latter her partner would have no reason to deny it.

 

[Trausti]

See, there are problems with just accepting accusations as true without corroborating evidence . . .

Charges dropped against Bellevue cop due to ‘sophisticated ruse’

All charges against a former Bellevue police officer were dropped Monday when prosecutors stated that he did not commit the crimes he was arrested for, which were part of a “sophisticated ruse” put forth by the accuser.

KIRO Radio’s Hanna Scott reports that the King County Prosecutor’s Office is dropping charges against John Kivlin, and is not pursuing rape charges against another Bellevue cop, Richard Newell.

According to court documents, the accuser “fabricated evidence and used a sophisticated ruse to deceive Kivlin, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the court in order to have Kivlin taken into custody and charged with additional crimes. The result of the (accuser’s) fabrication was that law enforcement arrested Kivlin for crimes he did not commit, prosecutors filed charges against Kivlin for crimes he did not commit, and the court held Kivlin in custody for order violations which he did not commit.”

Kivlin was arrested in April and accused of assaulting his girlfriend twice. The two reportedly met on Craigslist and began a relationship in 2015. But the woman began making allegations against Kivlin and other Bellevue police officers in 2018. After Kivlin was arrested and released for the assault allegations, he reportedly contacted the woman in violation of a court order in July. He was then charged with witness tampering.

Kivlin was arrested again for contacting the woman in August. But prosecutors say the woman making the allegations was lying this time. After inspecting Kivlin’s phone and billing records, it appears that the woman got Kivlin to text with her using a fake name in August.

Prosecutor’s add that she admitted that rape allegations she previously made in 2009 and 2010 were also false.

 

[Jarhyn]

- a long-winded distraction from discussions about standards of evidence, and from discussions about how to actually handle rape allegations -

So is it or is it not your position that claims should be trusted (believed) until they can either be confirmed or invalidated? or are you going to try to change the subject with distractions about false rapes? Nobody here is claiming that allegations don't need to be verified; that isn't what this is. we are saying allegations, specifically multiple allegations, make a very strong case that an investigation be made into those claims, and that the initial act should be to trust them, again pending investigation. What you have posted has no bearing on that.

 

[Trausti]

The number of accusers is a bit of a red herring; what matters is the strength of the evidence. Is there corroboration? Certainly there have been instances where there is no accuser - the victim was murdered, but there is physical evidence of sexual assault. As is oft stated, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. To leave it just to the accusation, without more, is to return to witch trials.

Except we have evidence, just not direct evidence. Ford made a bunch of statements about the situation which were able to be checked. While they don't prove an assault they prove her story is not simply made up. For her to have remembered those details makes it pretty certain something very memorable happened at that party.

Ordinary parties rarely include highly memorable things outside the sexual realm--assault and losing one's virginity are the two biggies. If it were the latter her partner would have no reason to deny it.

Well, if we focus on Ford; all she has is her own testimony. No corroborating witnesses. That includes he supposed then best friend Leland Keyser. Though named as a witness by Ford, she did not recall any such gathering and never knew Brett Kavanaugh. If you based your belief of Ford's credibility on her remembering details, the complete lack of corroboration by her best friend is a significant gap in the details. She also changed her story.

- - - Updated - - -

- a long-winded distraction from discussions about standards of evidence, and from discussions about how to actually handle rape allegations -

So is it or is it not your position that claims should be trusted (believed) until they can either be confirmed or invalidated? or are you going to try to change the subject with distractions about false rapes? Nobody here is claiming that allegations don't need to be verified; that isn't what this is. we are saying allegations, specifically multiple allegations, make a very strong case that an investigation be made into those claims, and that the initial act should be to trust them, again pending investigation. What you have posted has no bearing on that.

Tell that to the Bellevue cop who got arrested and put in jail on multiple allegations.

 

[Jarhyn]

- more long-winded distraction from actual discussions about standards of evidence -

- a long-winded distraction from discussions about standards of evidence, and from discussions about how to actually handle rape allegations -

So is it or is it not your position that claims should be trusted (believed) until they can either be confirmed or invalidated? or are you going to try to change the subject with distractions about false rapes? Nobody here is claiming that allegations don't need to be verified; that isn't what this is. we are saying allegations, specifically multiple allegations, make a very strong case that an investigation be made into those claims, and that the initial act should be to trust them, again pending investigation. What you have posted has no bearing on that.

Try reading again, paying special attention to the bolded sections. Nobody HERE is asking for JUST TRUST. Instead we are asking for TRUSTING BUT VERIFYING. Thing is, you don't want to do any trusting OR verifying. You just want to stick your head in the sand, it seems.

As to Ford, I and others here have pointed out multiple times that there was plenty there to verify, everything from the house, to asking all present about the events of the July 1 gathering, which specifically resembled just such a gathering.

 

[Trausti]

- more long-winded distraction from actual discussions about standards of evidence -

Try reading again, paying special attention to the bolded sections. Nobody HERE is asking for JUST TRUST. Instead we are asking for TRUSTING BUT VERIFYING. Thing is, you don't want to do any trusting OR verifying. You just want to stick your head in the sand, it seems.

As to Ford, I and others here have pointed out multiple times that there was plenty there to verify, everything from the house, to asking all present about the events of the July 1 gathering, which specifically resembled just such a gathering.

There's nothing to verify.

 

[Jarhyn]

- more long-winded distraction from actual discussions about standards of evidence -

Try reading again, paying special attention to the bolded sections. Nobody HERE is asking for JUST TRUST. Instead we are asking for TRUSTING BUT VERIFYING. Thing is, you don't want to do any trusting OR verifying. You just want to stick your head in the sand, it seems.

As to Ford, I and others here have pointed out multiple times that there was plenty there to verify, everything from the house, to asking all present about the events of the July 1 gathering, which specifically resembled just such a gathering.

There's nothing to verify.

Yeah, there is. There are substantive, concrete claims made by Ford. First, there is the house. If there exists a house, owned by one of the parents of: Tobin, Squi, Judge, Brett; located near-ish to the country club; with a narrow staircase; with a bedroom across the hall from a bathroom, the claim has been, in part, verified.

Further, pictures of several similar houses, and the floorplans of said houses (sans furniture, and plans as of 1982), can easily be sourced, and presented to Ford. If she picks the floor-plan of a house belonging to Tobin, Squi, Judge, or Brett, further verification has been made. This is even before talking to potential witnesses with respect to Ramirez or Swetnick. And again, this is before even considering that verification may, in fact, exist explicitly on BK's own calendar as the July 1 entry, wherein he explicitly states that he was drinking with all of the male guests described by Ford + Squi, at TOBIN'S HOUSE.

 

[bilby]

Ummm....humans are not raspberries.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Jarhyn]

There's nothing to verify.

Yeah, there is. There are substantive, concrete claims made by Ford. First, there is the house. If there exists a house, owned by one of the parents of: Tobin, Squi, Judge, Brett; located near-ish to the country club; with a narrow staircase; with a bedroom across the hall from a bathroom, the claim has been, in part, verified.

Further, pictures of several similar houses, and the floorplans of said houses (sans furniture, and plans as of 1982), can easily be sourced, and presented to Ford. If she picks the floor-plan of a house belonging to Tobin, Squi, Judge, or Brett, further verification has been made. This is even before talking to potential witnesses with respect to Ramirez or Swetnick. And again, this is before even considering that verification may, in fact, exist explicitly on BK's own calendar as the July 1 entry, wherein he explicitly states that he was drinking with all of the male guests described by Ford + Squi, at TOBIN'S HOUSE.

Oh, imagine that, they made a stupid claim and then ran and hid so they can pretend either like they never saw it or until they can find an approved republican soundbite to quip back!

Edit: and while you are a it, don't forget that we can also VERIFY based on the claims made by Ford the time period Mark Judge was working as a clerk at that store, to determine the exact year, which she was unsure about. And before you quip back about "she doesn't even remember what ear (derisive laugh here)", I also don't remember what year I was invited to a man's home in Wisconsin Dells, plied with alcohol, and raped...

If it actually happened that he worked there in '83 and not '82, that would mean that the "holten housebags' comment in the letter could actually be an allusion to what he did to Ford. I can fully see a person who was spurned being petty like that. Hell, even if it happened just the year prior it could STILL be that. Oh, and BK claimed to not slum it with Holten Arms. They were in "different social circles" after all.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ummm....humans are not raspberries.

Speak for yourself.

Mmmm. I know a human who wishes to be a raspberry flavored snow-leopard-person. Does that count?

 

[blastula]

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 18002

I wonder how many times it takes pointing this out to Trausti that he's gonna have to look at this thread for a while, knowing full well he's been disproven, even while he appears to keep posting the same claims every time the gang rapist gets brought up, that The claims weren't verifiable. But they were, they just weren't verifiED... by those with the power and ethical directive to do so.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ummm....humans are not raspberries.

I've met more than a few who might call this claim into question.

 

[blastula]

Well, if we focus on Ford; all she has is her own testimony. No corroborating witnesses. That includes he supposed then best friend Leland Keyser. Though named as a witness by Ford, she did not recall any such gathering and never knew Brett Kavanaugh. If you based your belief of Ford's credibility on her remembering details, the complete lack of corroboration by her best friend is a significant gap in the details. She also changed her story.

Did you read your link? This is what it considers a changing story:

A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one.

This is desperate, gaslighting garbage.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, if we focus on Ford; all she has is her own testimony. No corroborating witnesses. That includes he supposed then best friend Leland Keyser. Though named as a witness by Ford, she did not recall any such gathering and never knew Brett Kavanaugh. If you based your belief of Ford's credibility on her remembering details, the complete lack of corroboration by her best friend is a significant gap in the details. She also changed her story.

Did you read your link? This is what it considers a changing story:

A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one.

This is desperate, gaslighting garbage.

Indeed it is, especially seeing as there ARE substantive, verifiable claims that could have been investigated, which I described upthread, and which Trausti seems to be hiding from.

 

[Trausti]

Did you read your link? This is what it considers a changing story:



This is desperate, gaslighting garbage.

Indeed it is, especially seeing as there ARE substantive, verifiable claims that could have been investigated, which I described upthread, and which Trausti seems to be hiding from.

No, you're egging for a witch hunt. There is nothing which would convince you otherwise. The FBI could have a 10-year investigation and interview everyone who was a teenager in the 1980s. You'd still want more. If your own alleged witness denies your claim, that's it. There is no reasonable basis to continue on. You'd have to be believe that 7 FBI background investigations dating back to 1993 somehow never uncovered these salacious allegations. You'd have to take it on faith. I'm stating this as an attorney who's deposed/cross examined hundreds of witnesses. People lie. They can put on a good show. You can have the document in hand contradicting their testimony, but they'll keep digging the hole. Without corroborating evidence, there is little reason to believe anyone other than emotion and bias.

 

[Jarhyn]

Did you read your link? This is what it considers a changing story:



This is desperate, gaslighting garbage.

Indeed it is, especially seeing as there ARE substantive, verifiable claims that could have been investigated, which I described upthread, and which Trausti seems to be hiding from.

No, you're egging for a witch hunt. There is nothing which would convince you otherwise. The FBI could have a 10-year investigation and interview everyone who was a teenager in the 1980s. You'd still want more. If your own alleged witness denies your claim, that's it. There is no reasonable basis to continue on. You'd have to be believe that 7 FBI background investigations dating back to 1993 somehow never uncovered these salacious allegations. You'd have to take it on faith. I'm stating this as an attorney who's deposed/cross examined hundreds of witnesses. People lie. They can put on a good show. You can have the document in hand contradicting their testimony, but they'll keep digging the hole. Without corroborating evidence, there is little reason to believe anyone other than emotion and bias.

No. I have been consistent in saying what I want; you made a claim that nothing could be verified, and I rebutted it with a clear example of something that was verifiable. Full stop, right there. There is MORE that could be done in a week (like interviewing Brett and Ford), to be sure, but that is the first thing that should have been done. You made a false claim. Stop making the false claim.

 

[blastula]

There has been plenty of corroboration of Ford's story.

BK's calendar, for one. She must be a real good guesser to put Judge, BK and P.J. in the same place since the calendar confirms they did party together, especially considering that the BK says the two of them were in different social circles. (By the way, BK testified that a drinking gathering would have only happened on the weekend at that time, when his own fucking calendar showed a date for "skis" on a Thursday.)

She claimed he was visibly drunk when assaulting her. That he gets out of control when drunk has been repeatedly confirmed.

She claimed she saw Judge a few weeks later at a Safeway where he worked. Judge has written that he worked at a supermarket in the summer of 82.

Therapist's notes in 2012 that say she described an attack by boys from an elitist boys' school.

Another therapist's notes in 2013 that say she described a rape attempt in her teens. (This sure is an elaborate, long planned conspiracy!)

A friend who says she told her in 2013 she was almost raped by a federal judge, that she was trapped in a room with two drunken guys and then escaped.

A friend who says she told him 2016 that she was assaulted in high school by someone who became a federal judge.

Another friend in 2017 saying she told her she was attacked as a teen by someone who is now a federal judge.

There's also that the characteristics of her story don't fit the typical false accusation, which tend to be more dramatic or extreme. She doesn't describe something very severe. If she's lying, she could have just as easily claimed rape.

Compare her story to the characteristics of BK's testimony and it's obvious who is the more likely liar.

 

[Jarhyn]

There has been plenty of corroboration of Ford's story.

BK's calendar, for one. She must be a real good guesser to put Judge, BK and P.J. in the same place since the calendar confirms they did party together, especially considering that the BK says the two of them were in different social circles. (By the way, BK testified that a drinking gathering would have only happened on the weekend at that time, when his own fucking calendar showed a date for "skis" on a Thursday.)

She claimed he was visibly drunk when assaulting her. That he gets out of control when drunk has been repeatedly confirmed.

She claimed she saw Judge a few weeks later at a Safeway where he worked. Judge has written that he worked at a supermarket in the summer of 82.

Therapist's notes in 2012 that say she described an attack by boys from an elitist boys' school.

Another therapist's notes in 2013 that say she described a rape attempt in her teens. (This sure is an elaborate, long planned conspiracy!)

A friend who says she told her in 2013 she was almost raped by a federal judge, that she was trapped in a room with two drunken guys and then escaped.

A friend who says she told him 2016 that she was assaulted in high school by someone who became a federal judge.

Another friend in 2017 saying she told her she was attacked as a teen by someone who is now a federal judge.

There's also that the characteristics of her story don't fit the typical false accusation, which tend to be more dramatic or extreme. She doesn't describe something very severe. If she's lying, she could have just as easily claimed rape.

Compare her story to the characteristics of BK's testimony and it's obvious who is the more likely liar.

Yeah, not to mention those material elements to her claim. I'd sure like to know how wide the stairway was in Tobin's house in 1982. If she managed to describe a detail of a house belonging to someone BK was partying and drinking with without ever knowing their name or exact address, that's some powerful verification right there

 

[DrZoidberg]

How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty? This is a general question and does not require that any accusation or accuser necessarily appears credible. And please don't introduce legal arguments - this is not about the justice system.

It depends on the type of accusation. It also depends on who is being accused. We like being associated with famous people. There's a lot of loons out there. I think there's more than one out there who will spin something if she thinks it'll get her attention. So as soon as anybody famous is accused, I'm extra critical.