billsfan1959

1. My evidence point was spot on. I asked for actual evidence that her accusation was credible. I did not say her testimony was not evidence. It is evidence; however, the fact that it is evidence, in and of itself, has no bearing on if it is credible or not. Hence the request for what you believe made it credible. 2. Corrobating evidence is absolutely part of the process of determining whether something is provable or not, or credible or not. To say anything different is to show complete ignorance. 3. I am well aware of the fact that many assault victims do not make contemporaneous disclosures. Many of them do. It has nothing to do with the facts here. Your point shows how biased you are or how ignorant you are of the actual facts. Ford claimed to have made a contemporaneous disclosure and the person she named stated Ford never did. The absence of a contemporaneous disclosure is not, alone, a determination of whether an accusation is credible. However, when the victim claims to have made one to her best friend, her best friend denies she ever did, and her best friend says she did not believe it ever happened, then it does have some bearing on credibility. 4 (a). You really have a skewed ability to analyze behavior if you base anything on a perceived lack of bias or benefit to be gained. 4 (c). You believe it because it is plausible? Back to square one. What actual facts make it "plausible?" 4 (b). You are welcome to your opinion. I don't have a problem with you saying you believe her. Just quit trying to say there is any foundation to it other than you want to believe her. If you look at facts and the law in the courtroom like you do in this discussion, you should be disbarred.

Actually you didn't answer the question of why you found Ford's testimony credible. This is a perfect example of how you provide "answers" that don't really say anything - and then run around saying "I already answered that." You touted your legal "experience" as a basis, your "experience" working on sexual assault cases as a basis, watching her speak as a basis, and considering the circumstances of her disclosure as a basis. However, you never actually said what it was, specifically, about any of those things that brought you to the conclusion that she was credible. So, I am just asking you to articulate what specific factors from your legal experience, what specific factors from your experience with sexual assault cases, what specific factors from watching her testimony, and what specific factors from consideration of the circumstances of her disclosure are the basis for finding her accusation credible. See the difference? I know you do. I'll give you a hint: Focus on things like actual evidence, contemporaneous disclosures, corroboration from other witnesses, consisitency/accuracy of facts and details within her own testimony, consisitency/accuracy of facts and details in relation to the testimony/statements of others, etc. You know, those kinds of things you would actually have to argue to a jury? This could be a fun discussion. Based on your posts, I'm sure I don't have anywhere near the experience you do in the criminal justice field and sexual assault cases. Who could? However, I have spent a fair amount of time over the last 35+ years in courtrooms assisting in the prosecution of violent crimes, working on violent crime cases, analyzing volent crime and criminal/victim behaviors, and conducting training on violent crime. As I said, probably not anywhere near the amount of experience you have. But, I think, enough to hold my own in this specific discussion. So, list your specific factors, as outlined above, and we can have an honest discussion about them. Just pretend you are doing your closing argument and we are the jury. Here is your chance to shine Hamilton Burger. EDIT: It is ok to admit you believed her simply because you wanted to. We all know it anyway.

A legend in his own mind....

Still can't answer a question that should be simple with you incrediblly vast "experience" So sad

I think just about anyone on this board would say they don't need any further proof. But I will make you a deal. You previously stated, based on your legal experience and experience working on sexual assault cases that you believed Dr. Ford's testimony. But you refused to provide anything specific. So, for eveyone here, that you love chastizing because they dare weigh in on legal matters with no "expertise", please share the specific things you saw, based on your vast experience, that made her testimony credible. You made the claims. Back them up. If you do, then I will show you where else you are wrong as well. Cheers

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I just think he is a hypocrite

Says the house of cards....

That would be too easy. Just pull up pretty much any post in which you have applied your legal "expertise." Hey, why don't you list for us all those factors again, based on your vast experience in the legal field and sexual assault cases, why Dr. Ford's testimony was credible. Oh, wait....

In SectionC3's defense, when his presidential candidate pretty much tells African Americans that they better not stray off the Democratic Party plantation, he really has no other option than to brush off as nothing. Seeing racism alive and well at the top of the Democratic party doesn't really reconcile with the "we are the enlightened and everyone outside of our party is a racist" mantra. They don't like to see things that show them as the very thing they accuse everyone else of being. Nobody likes a mirror when the reflection is ugly....

And, yet, you are the one who is so wrong, so often, in the very area in which you claim to have expertise. Why is that?

Maybe they aspire to be me...

You've never let that stop you before....

Ahhh, nothing gets right to the heart of complex issues like your shallow, superficial responses....

I think anyone that might have been Mrs. Frenkle wins...

Buck Nasty is Q Baby Yes he can

Too bad they didn't send his alt identities on vacation with him...

Smoked pork shoulder with roasted potatoes and corn...Japanese curried beef ribs... Mmmmm.....

There is some truth to the need, for some, to be part of something monumental. Global warming or other causes are looked at in the same vein as the civil rights movement of the 60s. However, I think this constant fear exhibited by the safe space crowd is less about biologically programmed systems and more about environmental influences Was this directed at me? I was arguing the same thing....

The fight or flight response is still very much biologically programmed within us. I'm not sure what you are talking about in regard to being poorly adapted, biologically speaking, to deal with non-threats. Perhaps you can provide an example.

And look at the irreparable cognitive damage they have inflicted upon themselves....

The fight / flight response is a specific physiological reaction in response to a perceived threat. It is not designed to be frequently activated or activated for long periods of time. Humans are not wired to live in fear.

No, but it certainly is something much more than "I believe her." Saying you believe her is not the same as saying the accusation was credible. To say it was credible would involve articulating what it was that led you to believe it was credible. You like to tout your legal experience, and you were the one that insinuated your "experience" working on sexual assault cases was also a basis for believing her. You said you watched her speak and considered the circumstances of her disclosure. So, I am just asking you to articulate what specific factors from your experience, watching her testimony, and consideration of the circumstances of her disclosure lead you to find her accusation credible.

Ding, Ding, we have a winner. If he is an attorney, then I am sure he understood the concepts I spoke of and has stood in front of juries hundreds of times arguing about why they should or shouldn't believe any particular witness. So, It should be second nature for him to lay out for us all the reasons he found Ford and her accusations credible. He loves to throw out his legal experience and now has added his experience in sexual assault cases as a basis for believing Ford's accusations. I would love to hear how his experience in either aided him in reaching his conclusions. He will never answer because he can't. He believed Ford because he wanted to.

Hey, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you never responded to my questions about this statement, so I thought I would ask again: If you have any experience with Sexual assault or with witnesses then you should understand the concepts of what makes a witness credible and what makes the information provided by that witness credible. They are intertwined but not the same thing. A "credible witness" can still lie or be mistaken and provide information that is not credible, while a witness with little credibility can provide truthful information that is credible. So, in your experience with witnesses and sexual assault, please tell us: 1) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that Ford was a credible witness (if you did)? 2) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that her accusation was credible (which is inherent in your statement that you believed her)?