Quote: @"KingBash" said:
I was ECSTATIC when she led me into a room. I got cheers, etc. Yada yada yada
But you just yada yada'd the best part.
How far will the goal posts be moved IF this investigation doesn't turn up anything new?
Quote: @"BlackMagic7" said:
I read what happened to you there KB and you having messages to back you up. Do you think his hand written calendar and his recollection of the events he wrote to be false or fake? Do you believe they are just too convenient or it's not believable that he kept logs of his life like that?
I'm asking because he literally has a document that backs his claims up - the difference is simply digital. His calendar looks authentic without even reading it; it's is all old and crusty with an 80's looking binder and faded text written with multiple different utensils. It looks like something my mom might have laying around somewhere. To me, he has produced more evidence that he is not guilty than she has that he is; and most of the people who she named have disputed him being involved in these claims.
I feel like he has provided the kind of record to back himself up that you have. It's been twisted and distorted into something else in front of his face to the public and nothing he is showing or stating is going to stop this derailment from happening...
The FBI has a week to check it out - we'll see what they do or don't find I guess...
Maybe we're differing on how we interpret the findings of the calendar. I didn't think it proved a single thing. I agree it's authentic, but aside from not having "didn't rape today" write on each block, what does it prove? She didn't name a specific date, and wasn't his defense only that he stayed in and would've been too busy on weeknights? And the calendar DOES point to a lot of nefarious behavior that doesn't necessarily negate Dr. Ford's events but might call into question his own "choir boy" standing.
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
If he is a sexual preadator, guilty of attempted rape, indecent exposure and....I guess.....train/gang raping lol none of which can be substantiated. wouldnt this behavior have continued?
He had hundreds of female clerks over the years. All of them have said he would never had done this and never acted like that around them.
To me that is one of the most powerful things in his favor. He had all kinds of oppertunity to sexually harras these gals and he didnt.
Ive worked with class A douche bags who are creepy as F around all women. Its obvious and its a life long affliction.
What about the lie detector test she took? I haven't pointed that out yet, but that tells me she's credible.
I don't think people are saying he's a sexual predator. I think they're saying he's a privileged asshole who's character is showing through. I'd agree he's been a saint as a family man for years, but instead of saying, "Yeah I was a little shit who's grown up and learned a lot" he's crying and acting like a victim when people are pointing out his lies.
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"KingBash" said:
I was ECSTATIC when she led me into a room. I got cheers, etc. Yada yada yada
But you just yada yada'd the best part.
I mentioned the bisque...
Quote: @"KingBash" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
If he is a sexual preadator, guilty of attempted rape, indecent exposure and....I guess.....train/gang raping lol none of which can be substantiated. wouldnt this behavior have continued?
He had hundreds of female clerks over the years. All of them have said he would never had done this and never acted like that around them.
To me that is one of the most powerful things in his favor. He had all kinds of oppertunity to sexually harras these gals and he didnt.
Ive worked with class A douche bags who are creepy as F around all women. Its obvious and its a life long affliction.
What about the lie detector test she took? I haven't pointed that out yet, but that tells me she's credible.
I don't think people are saying he's a sexual predator. I think they're saying he's a privileged asshole who's character is showing through. I'd agree he's been a saint as a family man for years, but instead of saying, "Yeah I was a little shit who's grown up and learned a lot" he's crying and acting like a victim when people are pointing out his lies.
Shes a phycologist. If theres anyone who can beat them it that profesion. The alternative is that shes telling the truth as she sees it. There was already some dude that came forward and said it was probably him that was guilty?
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"KingBash" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
If he is a sexual preadator, guilty of attempted rape, indecent exposure and....I guess.....train/gang raping lol none of which can be substantiated. wouldnt this behavior have continued?
He had hundreds of female clerks over the years. All of them have said he would never had done this and never acted like that around them.
To me that is one of the most powerful things in his favor. He had all kinds of oppertunity to sexually harras these gals and he didnt.
Ive worked with class A douche bags who are creepy as F around all women. Its obvious and its a life long affliction.
What about the lie detector test she took? I haven't pointed that out yet, but that tells me she's credible.
I don't think people are saying he's a sexual predator. I think they're saying he's a privileged asshole who's character is showing through. I'd agree he's been a saint as a family man for years, but instead of saying, "Yeah I was a little shit who's grown up and learned a lot" he's crying and acting like a victim when people are pointing out his lies.
Shes a phycologist. If theres anyone who can beat them it that profesion. The alternative is that shes telling the truth as she sees it. There was already some dude that came forward and said it was probably him that was guilty?
What are you basing that on? Psychologists can beat lie detector tests? Care to show any evidence?
Dude, I'm not saying it happened or didn't. I'm saying I think so based on what happened. I'm not (and never have been) one of these "believe all women" people simply because of their gender. I'm just trying to be fair, and I even admitted the timing of this was politically motivated.
Lie detector tests are not normally used in a court of law and can be easily passed by someone who is used to not telling the truth/believes what they are saying is true or just by the person administering the test fucking it up.
From the link below...
the results are mostly inadmissible in courts of law. Although polygraph machines look scientific and measure responses
such as sweating and increased pulse rate with exquisite accuracy, they
are crude in their conception. Indeed, they are no more sophisticated
than an ancient Arab ordeal for detecting liars.
In the Arab test a
heated knife blade was pressed to the subject’s tongue. If he was
telling the truth, his tongue would not get burned. The idea is that
when people are nervously excited, their mouth goes dry because
nervousness suppresses salivation. In principle, the lie detection
system involved is exactly the same as for a polygraph test.
I nterestingly, the polygraph is quite good at identifying liars but does
no better than chance at detecting honest people according to Lykken.
In other words, there is a 50:50 chance that a polygraph test will say
an honest person is lying (a 50 percent “false positive” rate).
Another major weakness is that the test can be faked.
From a scientific perspective, there is no rationale for administering a
polygraph test. So there is certainly no good reason to take one - if
you can avoid it. Otherwise, you expose yourself to the nightmare of
false self-incrimination.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work
Quote: @"Bezerker88" said:
Lie detector tests are not normally used in a court of law and can be easily passed by someone who is used to not telling the truth/believes what they are saying is true or just by the person administering the test fucking it up.
From the link below...
the results are mostly inadmissible in courts of law. Although polygraph machines look scientific and measure responses
such as sweating and increased pulse rate with exquisite accuracy, they
are crude in their conception. Indeed, they are no more sophisticated
than an ancient Arab ordeal for detecting liars.
In the Arab test a
heated knife blade was pressed to the subject’s tongue. If he was
telling the truth, his tongue would not get burned. The idea is that
when people are nervously excited, their mouth goes dry because
nervousness suppresses salivation. In principle, the lie detection
system involved is exactly the same as for a polygraph test.
I nterestingly, the polygraph is quite good at identifying liars but does
no better than chance at detecting honest people according to Lykken.
In other words, there is a 50:50 chance that a polygraph test will say
an honest person is lying (a 50 percent “false positive” rate).
Another major weakness is that the test can be faked.
From a scientific perspective, there is no rationale for administering a
polygraph test. So there is certainly no good reason to take one - if
you can avoid it. Otherwise, you expose yourself to the nightmare of
false self-incrimination.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work
Definitely possible. And I can provide easily Google-able links that state - from credible law enforcement professionals - they're accurate to a fault. (Although I do agree they can be beaten/there are faults.)
So what you're saying is she made this all up? In July, she saw a conservative SC Justice up for nomination, didn't like it, and figured she'd risk her entire life/career to fabricate a story?
I understood she was asked two questions on her lie detector test. The test was also arranged by her pro-bono democratic lawyer - the same ones that did not inform her she could have testified on the record in California confidentially and privately.
I do understand that the calendar doesn't not reflect every moment of his life - I just find it to be very convincing along with his testimony. As he describes it he recalls very minor details about his past. It states he was out of town and he recalls details of those trips out of town.
Her case was presented as "I think it happened on this date but i'm not sure." Now her lawyers have his timeline... Why not try and say it happened in June or July when his calendar looked more "open" to this occurring? Who can prove it wrong?
I certainly appreciate being able to have and read conversation without it devolving into crazy accusations or character assassinations KB. I enjoyed reading your "rant." Not sure I'd call it that; it was nicely stated. It's not really the discussion that has me on eggshells as much as it is fear of being labeled something ridiculous or being blown up over it.
|
