Re: The New York Times Anti-Kavanaugh Bombshell Is Actually a Dud
>>> If such memories are unreliable, then they should be given no credibility - is that what you are saying? Would you apply the same reasoning to the accuser and the accused?
>> If the supposed victim recalls no such event, then what evidence is there?
> There are many cases where other forms of evidence of a crime must be considered other than the testimony of the victim. As an example, you will find that there are few cases where a murder victim can testify against a murderer, but murderers can still often be prosecuted.
Nice try. But this is not a murder case, it's a sexual assault case. There is no physical evidence. It allegedly happened 30 years ago. And nobody except a Kavanaugh hating Clinton crony claims to have any recollection of it.
Nobody can prove that the alleged events were impossible. But that is not the standard of evidence that any fair minded person would use. Anybody can allege anything.
Imagine it was you. Somebody accused you of a sexual assault from decades ago. Imagine there is no evidence, just an allegation. Imagine the story was all over the news. Imagine the accuser tried to have you disgraced, and fired from your job. Would that be fair to you?
And this is not the first time. We know for a fact that Ford lied her ass off while under oath. We know one of Ford's own witnesses said Ford was full of crap. We know that Kavanaugh's other accuser have completely fabricated their preposterous stories.