Kavanaugh - Is corroboration for sexual assault required?

[mariomike]

-Justin Trudeau

I can very much see us facing a similar situation as this approaching our next election. Sexual assault allegations are politically weaponized.

"women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed. "

For reference to that discussion in Canadian Politics,

Prime minister apologizes to reporter but doesn't remember why?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/128395.50
3 pages.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

>it's entirely possible for someone to lie without even realising it due to the fickle nature of memory

If Ford and Kavanaugh each believed what they said to be true and made false statements without realizing it, then they might be mistaken, but not liars.

It would appear that her fear of flying was "woke" upon being requested to come for a interview, seems it wasn't triggered by her other adventures flying here and there.

 

[Strike]

It would appear that her fear of flying was "woke" upon being requested to come for a interview, seems it wasn't triggered by her other adventures flying here and there.

Maybe she takes meds when she flies?

I'm scared of heights, but I flew helicopters for a number of years, sometimes with the doors off.

Fear is an irrational thing and makes no sense to those people who don't share it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It would appear that her fear of flying was "woke" upon being requested to come for a interview, seems it wasn't triggered by her other adventures flying here and there.

'False face must hide what the false heart doth know.' Macbeth

 

[a_majoor]

women who come forward with complaints of sexual assault and harassment must be supported and believed.

-Justin Trudeau

This really cuts to the heart of why the weaponized #metoo is such a terrible thing. Women who come forward must be believed, unless the accused is on "your" side. Real and well documented cases of real abuse are ignored, because they might hurt "your" side, while even vague and unsubstantiated accusations are hurled at the "other" side.

So if you are a real victim of abuse, what happens? Do you attempt to lodge a complaint anyway, knowing that one side will jump aboard and expand it like a balloon, while the other side will dismiss it as being a partisan attack? For the accused, how can they possibly proceed in a situation where all the protections of the Rule of Law have been abandoned?

And the situational nature of this goes beyond sexual abuse, what about domestic abuse or "honour killings"? Similarly FGM is "off the table" for discussion. You can probably think of other issues which are no longer spoken of, and people who try are shouted down, "disqualified" or "deplatformed".

And if rational discussion os no longer permitted (or even punished-look at "compelled speech" or how "Human Rights" tribunals operate), it dies not mean these issues go away, only that they now fester below the surface, ready to explode at an unexpected instant and probably in ways that the vast majority of people (regardless of their positions) will not approve of.

So the only way to get this under control before it destroys our high productivity, High Trust society is to insist that the same rules and same protections apply to everyone (the Rule of Law). Ignore "whataboutism", focus on the known facts and what can be verified. If you are unfortunately a victim, you MUST swear out a complaint right away and have forensic evidence gathered: "he said/she said" is no way to resolve an issue.

If we as a people collectively insist upon this standard of behaviour, and apply it to every case, regardless of if it is Justin Trudeau or Justin Smith, then we have a chance of salvaging something out of this mess.

 

[Strike]

If you are unfortunately a victim, you MUST swear out a complaint right away and have forensic evidence gathered: "he said/she said" is no way to resolve an issue.

That looks at the whole situation pretty simplistically, ignoring the power play that usually drives an assault.  I mean, you may as well just tell people to stop assaulting others and then everything will be alright.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

-Justin Trudeau

I can very much see us facing a similar situation as this approaching our next election. Sexual assault allegations are politically weaponized.

It's already been put away in Canada, so far as I can tell. After Trudeau's own #metoo moment this year, the precedent appears to have been set.

Deny it, shrug your shoulders and say you remember it differently, then walk away. No consideration to the supposed victim and no adverse press coverage from the MSM.

The grit's fiasco, in the handling of this, has made a mockery of Canada's #metoo movement and any kind of compassion for the victims has been diminished by the government's handling of Trudeau's alleged Kootney groping episode.

Will it stop people from trying?

Nope.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the record and not about sexual assault or drinking:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/my-battle-brett-kavanaugh-over-truth-ambrose-evans-pritchard/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/02/foster-mystery-key-witness-ignored-fbi-reveals-face-possible/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/02/street-fascisman-excerpt-secret-life-bill-clinton-ambrose-evans/

Do I believe everything I read?  Not a chance.  But I do try to read a lot.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Maybe she takes meds when she flies?

I'm scared of heights, but I flew helicopters for a number of years, sometimes with the doors off.

Fear is an irrational thing and makes no sense to those people who don't share it.

Knowing you're scared of heights but fly  helicopters - if a colonel was in line to be promoted and you went to the military police   merit boards and accused him of sexually assaulting you 30 years ago, and knowing his promotion was a time sensitive issue, and you were asked to fly somewhere to discuss it and refused because you're "scared of heights" do you think people might have just cause of suspicion? Or is fear just irrational and the circumstances don't matter?

 

[Strike]

Knowing you're scared of heights but fly  helicopters - if a colonel was in line to be promoted and you went to the military police   merit boards and accused him of sexually assaulting you 30 years ago, and knowing his promotion was a time sensitive issue, and you were asked to fly somewhere to discuss it and refused because you're "scared of heights" do you think people might have just cause of suspicion? Or is fear just irrational and the circumstances don't matter?

She didn't refuse (obviously) but asked if there was any way the interviews could have been conducted at her home so she could "avoid" flying. That's quite a big distinction - refusing vs avoiding.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good point, yes big distinction.

Another article about the 3rd witness who appears to be a bit less than 100% credible.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/36571/ap-provides-evidence-swetnick-tried-swindle-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[Rifleman62]

She didn't refuse (obviously) but asked if there was any way the interviews could have been conducted at her home so she could "avoid" flying. That's quite a big distinction - refusing vs avoiding.

She was asked several times how she wanted her testimony to be heard, various options, including committee investigators going to a location of her choice,incl CA. It appears that her legal representation did not pass the info to he re a location of her choice.

 

[Petard]

This recent episode of the “nature of things” on memory certainly challenges some of the established practices of collecting, and accepting, eye witness testimony

https://youtu.be/1W5vhzp92ZQ

 

[larry Strong]

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

More at link...

https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/


Cheers
Larry

 

[FJAG]

This recent episode of the “nature of things” on memory certainly challenges some of the established practices of collecting, and accepting, eye witness testimony

https://youtu.be/1W5vhzp92ZQ

They taught me in law school thirty-five years ago that eye witness evidence is amongst the least reliable.

:cheers:

 

[Petard]

Given such testimony can be challenged on its accuracy if not its veracity, and it gets even more questionable over time, is there not some need then by prosecution to provide corroborating evidence, for example evidence that at least puts the accused at the scene of the crime?

 

[Jarnhamar]

More at link...

https://globalnews.ca/news/4628088/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accusation-lie/


Cheers
Larry

I'm shocked. Didn't see that coming.

 

[Rifleman62]

She also said she did not write (author) the accusation letter. Who did?

 

[Journeyman]

One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Hopefully, she'll be charged, convicted (if the media account proves accuraate), and held accountable for her actions;  this shouldn't be a political party issue -- although of course, it will be.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Given such testimony can be challenged on its accuracy if not its veracity, and it gets even more questionable over time, is there not some need then by prosecution to provide corroborating evidence, for example evidence that at least puts the accused at the scene of the crime?

I do not know about the US< but in Canada it is an essential element of the offence of assault (including sexual assault) that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was present on the date and time that the assault is alleged to have occurred. That generally requires much more than testimonial evidence of the complainant. One example outside of that might be where the accused was wearing a disguise or a mask and then a judge will have to make a determination about the location of the accused at the material time. Again, strong evidence is required. If that cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt, there is little prospect for a conviction. This is part of the reason why convictions for sexual assault are challenging cases- usually there is only the accused and the complainant present when the alleged assault occurred. On the other hand, despite this, it rare in a trial where an accused raises this defence- usually this information is vetted by the police prior to trial.  The police have a duty to the accused to conduct a proper investigation before the investigation turns into a trial...