The Harvey List

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#351 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
frogman042 wrote: In case you don't want to follow the link here is just a few of the 46 cases listed (some had more than 1 eyewitness - i just picked a few that seems to have had only 1 eyewitness):

Adams, Randall Dale (convicted 1977, exonerated 1989) — Mr. Adams was sentenced to death
for the murder of a police officer in Dallas County, Texas. A purported eyewitness, who in fact
was the actual killer, framed Mr. Adams and received immunity from prosecution in exchange
for his testimony. Mr. Adams was not involved in the crime. The facts came to light after filmmaker
Errol Morris took an interest in the case and produced a now-famous documentary — The
Thin Blue Line.

Beeman, Gary (convicted 1976, exonerated 1979) — Mr. Beeman was sentenced to death for
the murder of a man in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The conviction rested on the testimony of a
prison escapee who claimed he saw Mr. Beeman with the victim at about the time the coroner
estimated the murder occurred and saw him again shortly thereafter with blood on his clothes.
The witness also claimed Mr. Beeman had admitted the crime. The Ohio Supreme Court
reversed the conviction because the trial judge had prevented Mr. Beeman from calling an
exculpatory witness. At the retrial, Mr. Beeman was acquitted after five witnesses testified that
the man who had been the prosecution’s star witness at the first trial had confessed that he
committed the crime and that Mr. Beeman was not involved.

Smith, Charles (convicted 1983, exonerated 1991) — Mr. Smith was sentenced to death for the
murder and robbery of a young woman in Allen County, Indiana. The state’s case was based
entirely on the testimony of a purported accomplice/eyewitness who was granted immunity from
prosecution. Mr. Smith had a solid alibi, which he was prohibited from presenting by the trial
judge because his attorney had failed to file a pretrial alibi notice. After initially affirming the
conviction and death sentence, the Indiana Supreme Court four years later granted a retrial based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. At retrial, the defense presented not only the alibi but also
evidence that the original eyewitness had falsely accused Mr. Smith of the crime.
None of those thumbnail sketches tell us everything the jury saw and heard. Additionally, there was at the very least, the evidence of a dead body, beyond a single eyewitness statement.
Fine. I'd be willing to bet people get convicted of rape based on a single eyewitness account with no physical evidence. --Bob
35 years later?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18815
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The Harvey List

#352 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:00 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
None of those thumbnail sketches tell us everything the jury saw and heard. Additionally, there was at the very least, the evidence of a dead body, beyond a single eyewitness statement.
Fine. I'd be willing to bet people get convicted of rape based on a single eyewitness account with no physical evidence. --Bob
35 years later?
That's prevented by the statute of limitations.

But I think a lot of priests are starting to suffer consequences based on events that far in the past. Not remotely approaching what they should suffer, but it's a start.

One person's testimony, if believed, is enough. We need to hear as much evidence as possible on this, and if that means delaying the vote for a lifetime appointment for a couple of months and forcing the Court to function with eight Members, that's a price the Republic should be willing to pay. Hell, at least he got a hearing. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#353 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:02 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Fine. I'd be willing to bet people get convicted of rape based on a single eyewitness account with no physical evidence. --Bob
35 years later?
That's prevented by the statute of limitations.

But I think a lot of priests are starting to suffer consequences based on events that far in the past. Not remotely approaching what they should suffer, but it's a start.

One person's testimony, if believed, is enough. We need to hear as much evidence as possible on this, and if that means delaying the vote for a lifetime appointment for a couple of months and forcing the Court to function with eight Members, that's a price the Republic should be willing to pay. Hell, at least he got a hearing. --Bob
If you don't like the lifetime appointment, then support the Convention of the States. We need term limits on the SC.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#354 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:05 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:Fine. I'd be willing to bet people get convicted of rape based on a single eyewitness account with no physical evidence. --Bob
35 years later?
That's prevented by the statute of limitations.

But I think a lot of priests are starting to suffer consequences based on events that far in the past. Not remotely approaching what they should suffer, but it's a start.

One person's testimony, if believed, is enough. We need to hear as much evidence as possible on this, and if that means delaying the vote for a lifetime appointment for a couple of months and forcing the Court to function with eight Members, that's a price the Republic should be willing to pay. Hell, at least he got a hearing. --Bob
You totally discount the idea of political motivation, don't you? A lot more evidence for that than this accusation, as it stands now. Tell me what believable evidence can possibly be produced at this time?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
frogman042
Bored Pun-dit
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:36 am

Re: The Harvey List

#355 Post by frogman042 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:06 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:
None of those thumbnail sketches tell us everything the jury saw and heard. Additionally, there was at the very least, the evidence of a dead body, beyond a single eyewitness statement.
Fine. I'd be willing to bet people get convicted of rape based on a single eyewitness account with no physical evidence. --Bob
35 years later?
Please note that I'm not weighing one way or the other on who is telling the truth or if it is something that should or shouldn't not result in confirmation.

Whether a crime occurred in this case is not known by anyone on this board - it is true that there is more 'evidence' than a single eye-witness if you want to play the game (well the car was damaged, someone was killed) - and that is potential testimony of what was said in the past. Feel free to believe or not to believe, but as far as I know there are written notes that were taken down about 6 years ago so what is being asserted doesn't even apply in this case.

Again - I really don't want get to deep into the confirmation part of this discussion - I'm only addressing the claim that no one gets convicted based just on someones testimony and especially no one ever gets put on death row based solely on testimony from a single witness. I think that has been debunked and convictions of crimes are being made with no other evidence other than what one person testifies to. It does happen.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18815
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The Harvey List

#356 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:07 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
35 years later?
That's prevented by the statute of limitations.

But I think a lot of priests are starting to suffer consequences based on events that far in the past. Not remotely approaching what they should suffer, but it's a start.

One person's testimony, if believed, is enough. We need to hear as much evidence as possible on this, and if that means delaying the vote for a lifetime appointment for a couple of months and forcing the Court to function with eight Members, that's a price the Republic should be willing to pay. Hell, at least he got a hearing. --Bob
You totally discount the idea of political motivation, don't you? A lot more evidence for that than this accusation, as it stands now. Tell me what believable evidence can possibly be produced at this time?
No, I'm just not willing to make a decision before the evidence comes in.

What's the problem with doing the investigation right, even if it means waiting a month or two to finish it? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#357 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:13 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:That's prevented by the statute of limitations.

But I think a lot of priests are starting to suffer consequences based on events that far in the past. Not remotely approaching what they should suffer, but it's a start.

One person's testimony, if believed, is enough. We need to hear as much evidence as possible on this, and if that means delaying the vote for a lifetime appointment for a couple of months and forcing the Court to function with eight Members, that's a price the Republic should be willing to pay. Hell, at least he got a hearing. --Bob
You totally discount the idea of political motivation, don't you? A lot more evidence for that than this accusation, as it stands now. Tell me what believable evidence can possibly be produced at this time?
No, I'm just not willing to make a decision before the evidence comes in.

What's the problem with doing the investigation right, even if it means waiting a month or two to finish it? --Bob
If something other than he said, she said turns up Monday that isn't an overhyped misinterpretation of semantics, I would support doing more investigation. Otherwise, give the guy his vote. If she doesn't show up, give him his vote.

Here's your question: If this whole thing turns out to be just a political ploy, would you tear up your democrat party card?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18815
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The Harvey List

#358 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:21 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
You totally discount the idea of political motivation, don't you? A lot more evidence for that than this accusation, as it stands now. Tell me what believable evidence can possibly be produced at this time?
No, I'm just not willing to make a decision before the evidence comes in.

What's the problem with doing the investigation right, even if it means waiting a month or two to finish it? --Bob
If something other than he said, she said turns up Monday that isn't an overhyped misinterpretation of semantics, I would support doing more investigation. Otherwise, give the guy his vote. If she doesn't show up, give him his vote.

Here's your question: If this whole thing turns out to be just a political ploy, would you tear up your democrat party card?
If it turns out that Dr. Blasey Ford had her therapist write notes about this incident six years ago (during a Democratic Administration), to lay the groundwork for scuttling Kavanaugh's nomination, then I'll make a sizeable donation to the Innocence Project.

The report is credible. I don't know whether it's true or not (and neither do you), but it's credible. Failing to investigate it thoroughly would be dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate.

I agree that if Dr. Blasey Ford won't testify, her accusations can't be given credence. But assuming she does, at a minimum Mark Judge needs to be subpoenaed. And I'd be willing to bet that a month or two of FBI investigating will make it a lot easier to identify whether the party happened at all and who else was in attendance. I do find it curious, for instance, that Kavanaugh says he was never at that party. He apparently knows the party being referenced better than Dr. Blasey Ford does. And if the story were a complete invention, why would she put a third person in the room? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#359 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:28 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:No, I'm just not willing to make a decision before the evidence comes in.

What's the problem with doing the investigation right, even if it means waiting a month or two to finish it? --Bob
If something other than he said, she said turns up Monday that isn't an overhyped misinterpretation of semantics, I would support doing more investigation. Otherwise, give the guy his vote. If she doesn't show up, give him his vote.

Here's your question: If this whole thing turns out to be just a political ploy, would you tear up your democrat party card?
If it turns out that Dr. Blasey Ford had her therapist write notes about this incident six years ago (during a Democratic Administration), to lay the groundwork for scuttling Kavanaugh's nomination, then I'll make a sizeable donation to the Innocence Project.

The report is credible. I don't know whether it's true or not (and neither do you), but it's credible. Failing to investigate it thoroughly would be dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate.

I agree that if Dr. Blasey Ford won't testify, her accusations can't be given credence. But assuming she does, at a minimum Mark Judge needs to be subpoenaed. And I'd be willing to bet that a month or two of FBI investigating will make it a lot easier to identify whether the party happened at all and who else was in attendance. I do find it curious, for instance, that Kavanaugh says he was never at that party. He apparently knows the party being referenced better than Dr. Blasey Ford does. And if the story were a complete invention, why would she put a third person in the room? --Bob

You are obviously getting your information from one of the fake news sources:
A Hatch spokesman later clarified that Hatch was "paraphrasing" Kavanaugh's responses in his comments and Kavanaugh did not necessarily refer to a specific party.
"Hatch was paraphrasing, never quoting, and a more accurate representation of Kavanaugh’s words was that he was not at any party like the one she describes," Matt Whitlock said on Twitter.
Please spare us your talking points, counselor.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: The Harvey List

#360 Post by BackInTex » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:38 pm

Bob78164 wrote: at a minimum Mark Judge needs to be subpoenaed. And I'd be willing to bet that a month or two of FBI investigating will make it a lot easier to identify whether the party happened at all and who else was in attendance.
You mean investigations like those done on Manafort and Papadopoulos where the DOJ isn't looking for skoop on what the target of the investigation is but looking for skoop on potential witnesses against the party they are supposed to be investigating? Yeah, I agree, after months and months I'm sure they could find something Judge did in his past that they can use to pressure him to testify whatever it is they want him to testify to.


Bob78164 wrote: I do find it curious, for instance, that Kavanaugh says he was never at that party. He apparently knows the party being referenced better than Dr. Blasey Ford does. And if the story were a complete invention, why would she put a third person in the room? --Bob
Well, she had been drinking. And heck, maybe she was attacked. Maybe in her hysterical state she got confused and over time, as she heard about this kid Kavenaugh she put him her mind as the perp.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17021
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Harvey List

#361 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:36 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
A Hatch spokesman later clarified that Hatch was "paraphrasing" Kavanaugh's responses in his comments and Kavanaugh did not necessarily refer to a specific party.
"Hatch was paraphrasing, never quoting, and a more accurate representation of Kavanaugh’s words was that he was not at any party like the one she describes," Matt Whitlock said on Twitter.
Please spare us your talking points, counselor.
It's amazing how whenever Republicans get caught in a lie they invent a reason after the fact that explains it away. That one's right out of the Donald Trump playbook.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17021
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Harvey List

#362 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:38 pm

Bob78164 wrote: But assuming she does, at a minimum Mark Judge needs to be subpoenaed. And I'd be willing to bet that a month or two of FBI investigating will make it a lot easier to identify whether the party happened at all and who else was in attendance. I do find it curious, for instance, that Kavanaugh says he was never at that party. He apparently knows the party being referenced better than Dr. Blasey Ford does. And if the story were a complete invention, why would she put a third person in the room? --Bob
In my view, that's one of the most compelling reasons to believe her statement. Why identify a third person as being there if you're going to make the story up (she obviously knew Judge wouldn't back her story if it was a lie)?
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#363 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:10 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:No, I'm just not willing to make a decision before the evidence comes in.

What's the problem with doing the investigation right, even if it means waiting a month or two to finish it? --Bob
If something other than he said, she said turns up Monday that isn't an overhyped misinterpretation of semantics, I would support doing more investigation. Otherwise, give the guy his vote. If she doesn't show up, give him his vote.

Here's your question: If this whole thing turns out to be just a political ploy, would you tear up your democrat party card?
If it turns out that Dr. Blasey Ford had her therapist write notes about this incident six years ago (during a Democratic Administration), to lay the groundwork for scuttling Kavanaugh's nomination, then I'll make a sizeable donation to the Innocence Project.

The report is credible. I don't know whether it's true or not (and neither do you), but it's credible. Failing to investigate it thoroughly would be dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate.

I agree that if Dr. Blasey Ford won't testify, her accusations can't be given credence. But assuming she does, at a minimum Mark Judge needs to be subpoenaed. And I'd be willing to bet that a month or two of FBI investigating will make it a lot easier to identify whether the party happened at all and who else was in attendance. I do find it curious, for instance, that Kavanaugh says he was never at that party. He apparently knows the party being referenced better than Dr. Blasey Ford does. And if the story were a complete invention, why would she put a third person in the room? --Bob
You have, as usual, avoided a direct question. If this whole thing is shown to be another political ploy by the democrats to delay the appointment, like the circus they organized to disrupt the hearings, would you disavow the democrats, or would you say 'tit for tat' like BJ does?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
a1mamacat
Posts: 6448
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: Great White North

Re: The Harvey List

#364 Post by a1mamacat » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:55 pm

The culture of 35 years ago, was that the woman was always blamed for "not being careful enough, getting drunk, etc" teasing.

BULLSHIT!!!

Sometimes the conditioning of your younger years takes a long time to overcome. Sometimes you want the shame of feeling responsible to just go away, to forget what happened.

YOU NEVER DO!!!

All you sanctimonious men..do you have daughters??? Would you believe them in a he said/she said situation without proof? If they said nothing to you for 3, 5 10 years, then spoke up to protect others, would you accuse them of lying? If they accused a respected friend, co-worker, businessman, who would you believe.

Sometimes, you find the courage to speak up, when it appears to be more than about you.
Lover of Soft Animals and Fine Art
1st annual international BBBL Champeeeeen!

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#365 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:04 am

a1mamacat wrote:The culture of 35 years ago, was that the woman was always blamed for "not being careful enough, getting drunk, etc" teasing.

BULLSHIT!!!

Sometimes the conditioning of your younger years takes a long time to overcome. Sometimes you want the shame of feeling responsible to just go away, to forget what happened.

YOU NEVER DO!!!

All you sanctimonious men..do you have daughters??? Would you believe them in a he said/she said situation without proof? If they said nothing to you for 3, 5 10 years, then spoke up to protect others, would you accuse them of lying? If they accused a respected friend, co-worker, businessman, who would you believe.

Sometimes, you find the courage to speak up, when it appears to be more than about you.
This is the conundrum. How do you weigh the consequences? How do you differentiate the rights of the accuser against the rights of the accused?

ANY man that abuses a woman in any way should be punished. It should never happen. But NO woman should falsely accuse a man of abusing her. Do you believe that women are incapable of false accusations? Is it sanctimonious to question the validity of an accusation that has so many seeming holes in it?

As a man, I can never fully understand the feelings a sexually assaulted woman experiences, and I completely sympathize with any victim. But I can also sympathize with people who are falsely accused. Can you?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18815
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The Harvey List

#366 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:16 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Is it sanctimonious to question the validity of an accusation that has so many seeming holes in it?
It doesn't have holes. That doesn't mean it happened -- we have yet to hear from either of them under oath. But Dr. Blasey Ford is saying more or less exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone who went through the experience she recounts. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17021
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Harvey List

#367 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:01 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote: As a man, I can never fully understand the feelings a sexually assaulted woman experiences, and I completely sympathize with any victim. But I can also sympathize with people who are falsely accused. Can you?
When you phrase a sexual assault accusation as "he said/she said," you make it sound like it's a coin flip or two drivers arguing over who had the right of way when there is a collision. It's not. Statistics show that only about 2-10% of accusations are false (although it's often difficult to make a determination).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

Since she went public, Dr. Ford has had to move out of her house. She received death threats; her e-mail has been hacked. This is not some zealous political advocate. She is a middle-aged college professor.

The Republicans don't want a full hearing on this; they want to give the appearance of a fair hearing so they can justify voting for Kavanaugh. As for her testimony being "full of holes," Kavanaugh's testimony so far is full of holes as he has tap danced around issues and made what can at best be called some highly dubious denials regarding his knowledge of his own mentor's sexual indiscretions.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: The Harvey List

#368 Post by tlynn78 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:48 am

I personally can recall situations where at least different three women have stated things like, "He thinks he can cheat on me? Let's see what happens when I say he attacked me." .. another one, laughing with one of her friends, "..he dumped me after we f*&(ed, so I called his CO and told him he beat me up" in my hearing, just in the last few years, and I live in a relatively low population area. I've sat in more hearings than I can count, where women raised children with the fathers for years with no problems, then when the dad cheats, or leaves her, suddenly, he's been abusing the kids for years. It also goes the other way, when the woman cheats, she's suddenly a drug addict or hooker.
People lie. People lie for all kinds of reasons, and for no reason. This particular accuser has a well documented history of being, let's say, enthusiatically amenable to anti-conservative activities. Student reviews of her professor-ship are, to say the least, interesting. I would not be in the least surprised to learn she's simply allowed herself to become a willing, useful tool in the left's ongoing tantrum. She probably did have grope sessions at parties as a teenager. I'm sure she's not alone in that. She may well have been groped unwillingly. She may just as well have been a willing participant, who later became disenchanted when her fellow participant, whomever it may turn out to have been, perhaps didn't share her level of interest.
Saucy, I'll say the same thing to you I said to Bob. You'd better hope your young'un never has a date/party go bad. I'm betting you and Bob both would be the first to call a woman who accused your sons of this type of activity a lying ho.
Last edited by tlynn78 on Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5170
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Harvey List

#369 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:57 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Is it sanctimonious to question the validity of an accusation that has so many seeming holes in it?
It doesn't have holes. That doesn't mean it happened -- we have yet to hear from either of them under oath. But Dr. Blasey Ford is saying more or less exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone who went through the experience she recounts. --Bob
bob-tel, it has plenty of holes. Why do you blind yourself?
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17021
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Harvey List

#370 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:22 am

tlynn78 wrote:You'd better hope your young'un never has a date/party go bad. I'm betting you and Bob both would be the first to call a woman who accused your sons of this type of activity a lying ho.
There is a big difference between being a "little grabby" and pinning a 15-year-old girl on a bed, dry humping her, and putting hands over her mouth so she won't scream.

She brought this up originally in therapy five years ago. Do you really think she knew Kavanaugh was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court so she decided to lay the foundation early?

As far as being enthusiastically amenable to anti-conservative activities:
Ford is a registered Democrat who has made small political contributions to Democratic organizations. In April 2017, she attended a March For Science in San Francisco, which was held to protest Trump administration cuts to research, and she signed a letter in June 2018 condemning the Trump administration's policy, since abandoned, of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border.
I'd say a whole lot of college professors would fall under that category.

She does have a big name lawyer. Knowing the grief she would go through if she went public, it makes sense to have someone in your corner who's used to dealing with that.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/64880368 ... ual-assaul
Ford is a professor and research psychologist in Northern California at Palo Alto University and the Stanford University PsyD Consortium, a clinical psychology program where she teaches statistics, research methods and psychometrics. She has been widely published in her field and, according to a 2016 book she co-authored, her consultation area of expertise is the interaction between pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Ford received her Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, master's degrees from Stanford University and Pepperdine University, and her bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Christine Blasey Ford grew up in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., and attended Holton-Arms School, a private preparatory school in Bethesda for girls in third through 12th grade. The school's head, Susanna Jones, released a statement Sunday calling it "imperative" that Ford's story be heard. "As a school that empowers women to use their voices, we are proud of this alumna for using hers," Jones said.

A draft letter, appearing to be signed by more than 200 Holton-Arms alumnae from 1967 to 2018, called for an investigation into the allegation and said Ford's experience is one that is "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves." Jim Gensheimer, a friend of Ford's, told the San Jose Mercury News that Ford has been "trying to forget about this all of her life, basically" and that she has told him that she is afraid to sleep in bedrooms that do not have a second way out.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: The Harvey List

#371 Post by tlynn78 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:54 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:You'd better hope your young'un never has a date/party go bad. I'm betting you and Bob both would be the first to call a woman who accused your sons of this type of activity a lying ho.
There is a big difference between being a "little grabby" and pinning a 15-year-old girl on a bed, dry humping her, and putting hands over her mouth so she won't scream.

She brought this up originally in therapy five years ago. Do you really think she knew Kavanaugh was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court so she decided to lay the foundation early?

She did not 'remember' the names five years ago
.

As far as being enthusiastically amenable to anti-conservative activities:
Ford is a registered Democrat who has made small political contributions to Democratic organizations. In April 2017, she attended a March For Science in San Francisco, which was held to protest Trump administration cuts to research, and she signed a letter in June 2018 condemning the Trump administration's policy, since abandoned, of separating immigrant children from their parents at the border.
I'd say a whole lot of college professors would fall under that category.

Ya don't say?!

She does have a big name lawyer. Knowing the grief she would go through if she went public, it makes sense to have someone in your corner who's used to dealing with that.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/64880368 ... ual-assaul
Ford is a professor and research psychologist in Northern California at Palo Alto University and the Stanford University PsyD Consortium, a clinical psychology program where she teaches statistics, research methods and psychometrics. She has been widely published in her field and, according to a 2016 book she co-authored, her consultation area of expertise is the interaction between pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Ford received her Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, master's degrees from Stanford University and Pepperdine University, and her bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Christine Blasey Ford grew up in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., and attended Holton-Arms School, a private preparatory school in Bethesda for girls in third through 12th grade. The school's head, Susanna Jones, released a statement Sunday calling it "imperative" that Ford's story be heard. "As a school that empowers women to use their voices, we are proud of this alumna for using hers," Jones said.

A draft letter, appearing to be signed by more than 200 Holton-Arms alumnae from 1967 to 2018, called for an investigation into the allegation and said Ford's experience is one that is "all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves." Jim Gensheimer, a friend of Ford's, told the San Jose Mercury News that Ford has been "trying to forget about this all of her life, basically" and that she has told him that she is afraid to sleep in bedrooms that do not have a second way out.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17021
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: The Harvey List

#372 Post by silverscreenselect » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:50 am

tlynn78 wrote:I personally can recall situations where at least different three women have stated things like, "He thinks he can cheat on me? Let's see what happens when I say he attacked me." .. another one, laughing with one of her friends, "..he dumped me after we f*&(ed, so I called his CO and told him he beat me up"
So, you know of three women personally who filed presumably false police reports against husbands and boyfriends after telling you they intended to do so. I assume you contacted the police right away and notified them so that an innocent man wouldn't be arrested or convicted based on the claim of an angry ex.

And there is a big difference between accusing an ex and accusing a total stranger. Considering what this Dr. Ford and Anita Hill and the Me Too women went through, there's very good reason not to make a false claim and to keep quiet about something that actually did happen.

And there are plenty of women who continue to live with an abuser for years, either because they are afraid to leave, they think that staying with him is better than the alternatives, or in some cases that he's going to turn over a new leaf. Unless there's physical evidence of abuse (doctor and hospital visits or calls to the police), the final departure may seem to some people like it "came out of nowhere."
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: The Harvey List

#373 Post by tlynn78 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:34 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:I personally can recall situations where at least different three women have stated things like, "He thinks he can cheat on me? Let's see what happens when I say he attacked me." .. another one, laughing with one of her friends, "..he dumped me after we f*&(ed, so I called his CO and told him he beat me up"
So, you know of three women personally who filed presumably false police reports against husbands and boyfriends after telling you they intended to do so. I assume you contacted the police right away and notified them so that an innocent man wouldn't be arrested or convicted based on the claim of an angry ex.

And there is a big difference between accusing an ex and accusing a total stranger. Considering what this Dr. Ford and Anita Hill and the Me Too women went through, there's very good reason not to make a false claim and to keep quiet about something that actually did happen.

And there are plenty of women who continue to live with an abuser for years, either because they are afraid to leave, they think that staying with him is better than the alternatives, or in some cases that he's going to turn over a new leaf. Unless there's physical evidence of abuse (doctor and hospital visits or calls to the police), the final departure may seem to some people like it "came out of nowhere."

As previously noted, you truly have a reading comprehension problem. In at least two of the instances, I personally overheard women saying these things. I told them what I thought of them, although I didn't personally KNOW them or the men they were talking about. In the case of the report to the CO, I didn't know her, or him, personally, but I was able to ascertain who the CO was, and made a call to him, explaining what I (and another friend) had heard, and subsequently sent him a signed, notarized affidavit, along with my friend. I didn't say anything about any of them filing a police report, and I haven't heard of Dr. Blasey Ford filing one, either.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 6845
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: The Harvey List

#374 Post by tlynn78 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:53 pm

The 'proof' for Rep. Ellison was far more compelling. How many of you are writing to your congress people to demand his resignation? Or to demand an investigation, even?
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18815
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: The Harvey List

#375 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:58 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:I personally can recall situations where at least different three women have stated things like, "He thinks he can cheat on me? Let's see what happens when I say he attacked me." .. another one, laughing with one of her friends, "..he dumped me after we f*&(ed, so I called his CO and told him he beat me up"
And there are plenty of women who continue to live with an abuser for years, either because they are afraid to leave, they think that staying with him is better than the alternatives, or in some cases that he's going to turn over a new leaf. Unless there's physical evidence of abuse (doctor and hospital visits or calls to the police), the final departure may seem to some people like it "came out of nowhere."
My sister-in-law got divorced a couple of years ago after nearly 30 years of marriage. She's a chiropractor and quite physically adept, with a black belt in one of the martial arts.

It turns out that her (now ex-) husband had been physically abusing her for many years. The divorce was triggered when the ex finally lost control in public, resulting in the police being called. Until then, as far as I know, neither her family nor her friends had a clue this was happening.

Her 17-year-old daughter, by the way, who saw the bruises resulting from the final incident, is resentful of the divorce and really wants to spend as much time as possible with her father. She blames her mother for splitting up the family. She doesn't understand why there's a court order limiting her ability to do so (which will expire when she turns 18).

This shit happens. A lot. And you can't ever tell from the outside whether it is happening or has happened. All of this bullshit about motives is just that, complete bullshit, just like it would be bullshit to imply that Mark Judge's politics make it more likely that he'd have participated in this incident as described by Dr. Blasey Ford. (And by the way, I haven't heard about Mark Judge hiring a lawyer to file a defamation claim against Dr. Blasey Ford. That would be my first move if someone ever made a claim like that about me.)

The way to assess this account is to start by getting evidence as to what actually happened, from as many people as it's possible to find, not to play armchair psychoanalyst as an excuse for character assassination of Dr. Blasey Ford, and not to cut off the investigation in the hope of getting a political pass by framing the issue as he said, she said. And that investigation really ought to be conducted by the cops (including the FBI), so that the principals' testimony can be measured against the accounts of other witnesses. Of course, it should go without saying that the principals shouldn't have access to those other accounts until after they've given their testimony.

At this point all we know is that she first spoke about this attack years ago so it's not a recent invention and that Mark Judge doesn't want to testify about it under oath, not even to back up Judge Kavanaugh's denials. As far as I know, there's been no serious effort by anyone to figure out where the party was, when it was, who else (other than Judge) was there, and what those persons might have seen. Without spending significant time (a month or two if necessary) to do this due diligence, the investigation will always look like a whitewash designed to provide political cover rather than an honest effort to reach the truth. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply