You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the one and only Spiceislander Talkshop.

#11 Oct 06, 2018 8:23 pm

houston
Active

Re: 650 Law Professors' Letter: Don't Confirm Kavanaugh!

Expat wrote:
houston wrote:
GMW wrote:

>>I don't believe this Ford woman..<<

OK. Got it!

I don't believe this woman nor disbelieve what she has to say.
The circus of US politics is something I try to avoid, but this story stirred attention.
I don’t understand why a person that was offended several years ago suddenly feels that the foggy memories have become clear once the accused offender has become a figure in the public eye.
Were the frat house frolics okay then but then considered offensive actions today?
Is it possible that some people want the 15 seconds of fame for taking down an achieved person?

If the story was true, however buried it might have been, it would not have been a foggy memory. We ..... all of can only speculate..... we were neither there, or in a position to judge, or even really accept the judgement made, as it has been "handled".

I believe it to just as much a disservice to the now to be appointed judge, as it is the the probable victim.

I would agree with RD that in all probability the Dems held onto it for political expedience, however the victim did give her testimony in a) good time, and b) without the intention of it being a public spectacle. Both parties have been wronged by this hiatus.

Any person that feels they were assaulted or violated should call the police immediately if possible and seek medical attention. The evidence collected could easily put an offender in jail.
This idea of coming forward decades later with an accusation is a waste of time for authorities. Not a question of belief but rather a matter of proof for conviction. The only outcome from this type of complaint without witness and evidence is that what may be a completely innocent defendant, will surely have his or her reputation destroyed.

Offline

#12 Oct 06, 2018 8:39 pm

Expat
Active

Re: 650 Law Professors' Letter: Don't Confirm Kavanaugh!

houston wrote:
Expat wrote:
houston wrote:

I don't believe this woman nor disbelieve what she has to say.
The circus of US politics is something I try to avoid, but this story stirred attention.
I don’t understand why a person that was offended several years ago suddenly feels that the foggy memories have become clear once the accused offender has become a figure in the public eye.
Were the frat house frolics okay then but then considered offensive actions today?
Is it possible that some people want the 15 seconds of fame for taking down an achieved person?

If the story was true, however buried it might have been, it would not have been a foggy memory. We ..... all of can only speculate..... we were neither there, or in a position to judge, or even really accept the judgement made, as it has been "handled".

I believe it to just as much a disservice to the now to be appointed judge, as it is the the probable victim.

I would agree with RD that in all probability the Dems held onto it for political expedience, however the victim did give her testimony in a) good time, and b) without the intention of it being a public spectacle. Both parties have been wronged by this hiatus.

Any person that feels they were assaulted or violated should call the police immediately if possible and seek medical attention. The evidence collected could easily put an offender in jail.
This idea of coming forward decades later with an accusation is a waste of time for authorities. Not a question of belief but rather a matter of proof for conviction. The only outcome from this type of complaint without witness and evidence is that what may be a completely innocent defendant, will surely have his or her reputation destroyed.

For probably the 5th time, if the accuser had only turned up a few weeks prior and blurted the story it would have been totally without credence, whether true or not it would smack of conspiracy, However the accuser spoke of the event without naming anyone to several people, and did during marital counseling some years prior to this debacle mentioned the Judges name.

This does not automatically make the testimony air tight, as corrupted memories could come into play, but it would be a testimony that while possibly flawed was not an intentional lie.

Women NOT saying anything at the time or even years later is very common and pretty chauvinistic not to be appreciated as a frequent event. If you had to be re-raped by detectives and a court full of titillated spectators you might stay shtum too.

Offline

#13 Oct 06, 2018 11:14 pm

Real Distwalker
Active

Re: 650 Law Professors' Letter: Don't Confirm Kavanaugh!

Expat wrote:

For probably the 5th time, if the accuser had only turned up a few weeks prior and blurted the story it would have been totally without credence, whether true or not it would smack of conspiracy, However the accuser spoke of the event without naming anyone to several people, and did during marital counseling some years prior to this debacle mentioned the Judges name.

Well, that's what she and her husband say.  She refused to turn over the counselor notes.  Now, you tell me.  If the counselor notes are evidence against Kavanaugh, why wouldn't she allow the Senators to review them?   She wouldn't.  I bet the counselor notes were, in fact, exculpatory.

It is over.  She said she won't pursue criminal charges against him and multiple investigations have shown no evidence of his guilt.  He is innocent... and now a justice of the Supreme Court sworn in this afternoon.

Offline

#14 Oct 07, 2018 9:09 am

Expat
Active

Re: 650 Law Professors' Letter: Don't Confirm Kavanaugh!

Correct, it is over.

I had no idea the notes were blocked, however there could be reasons other than this debacle why she would not want the World tuning in to her private session.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB