(Oct 29, 2018 03:17 AM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]From what I recall, I'm not sure the ''friends'' and ''witnesses'' denied it happening, with absolution. They simply couldn't recall the party at all. Kind of like how Kavanaugh couldn't recall staggering, and blacking out, but clearly some of his classmates did, back in college. Not recalling something, isn't the same thing as denying it. I don't know for sure, but Dr Ford seemed credible to me. I don't understand why the FBI didn't interview her, or Kavanaugh, and others...or take longer. It seemed like it was being steered to bring people to conclusions, even if they weren't quite ready to make them.
Then you made a judgement without bothering to ascertain the facts, since everyone Ford named as being there denied any knowledge of such a party...in sworn statements, prosecutable as perjury. The attorney of Ford's lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, wrote that 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.” And just in case Ford is mistaken about the identity of her attacker, no one really wants to just say she's outright lying. None of the claims about Kavanaugh's drinking could be independently verified, and the major one was hearsay from a guy that denied he ever said it.
The only purpose the FBI interviewing Ford would serve would have been to prove she perjured herself...when she may be a victim of a misremembered assault. On top of not having anywhere near enough info to actually investigate anything...not knowing when or where a crime happened nor any evidence that a crime occurred at all...as well as that crime not being in the jurisdiction of the FBI. What, did she hold back some critical evidence or leave something out of her sworn statement? Why would she do that? And Kavanaugh had already passed several thorough FBI background checks. What else could he offer about something he knows didn't happen? How would more time change any of those facts? No potential witnesses proved to have any info that would have changed the outcome.
It was all a political ploy to delay his confirmation beyond the midterm election, and they played you like a fiddle. Otherwise, why is no one still digging into it?
(Oct 29, 2018 04:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:That's a self-reported survey
That's the official stats. It doesn't get any more accurate than from the people the sexual assaults actually happened to.
"Rape is the most under-reported crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police.
The prevalence of false reporting is low — between 2% and 10%. For example, a study of eight U.S. communities, which included 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1% rate of false reports. A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston found a 5.9% rate of false reports. Researchers studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1% rate of false reports."
And for the record, drinking is not a justification for being sexually assaulted or raped.
The only measure of under-reported crime is self-reported surveys. People lie, to themselves most of all.
The prevalence of false reporting only includes those cases positively proven to be false and does not include those that lacked enough evidence to even bring charges or prosecute.
No one said drinking is a justification for being sexually assaulted or raped. It's just a simple fact that if a person is incapable of giving consent or stopping sex, they are equally incapable of controlling any other action.
(Oct 29, 2018 04:33 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Syne Wrote:And "touched you in a sexual way" (contact sexual violence) is highly subjective... to the point that it could include socially innocuous contact.
If more women were aware of the actual definition of sexual assault, I'm sure way more women would realize that they've been a victim of it and probably more than once in their life.
What is the "actual definition"? Is it a legal definition? Do you have an authoritative source?
Quote:Syne Wrote:This is why all victims of a crime should report it. That way it can be prosecuted or at the very least verified with contemporary evidence.
I don't think that we have the man power to handle something like that. Just off the top of my head, I could probably name a dozen or more incidences that would legally qualify.
We'll never know for sure unless they are reported. And even then, we need to track reports that do not result in charges, which we currently do not do.