October 8, 2018

"False memories of sexual abuse lead to terrible miscarriages of justice/To avoid the innocent being convicted, police, lawyers and judges must understand the fickle nature of human memory."

No! That's not a new article. That's from 2010, in The Guardian, but I'm reading it now because my son John posted it yesterday on Facebook.
Typically such cases occur when a vulnerable individual seeks help from a psychotherapist for a commonly occurring psychological problem such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and so on. At this stage, the client has no conscious memories of ever being the victim of childhood sexual abuse and is likely to firmly reject any suggestion of such abuse. To a particular sort of well-meaning psychotherapist, however, such denial is itself evidence that the abuse really did occur....

During therapy, and often as a result of "memory recovery" techniques such as hypnotic regression and guided imagery, the client may gradually develop clear and vivid memories of abuse having taken place, typically at the hands of parents and other family members.

On the evidence of a huge amount of well-controlled research, we can now be confident that these memory recovery techniques are highly likely to give rise to false memories – apparent memories for events that never took place.
For contrast, here's WaPo yesterday: "The junk science Republicans used to undermine Ford and help save Kavanaugh."
Mara Mather, a professor at the University of Southern California, has performed laboratory studies in which volunteers are given electric shocks or subjected to loud noises while they look at a set of symbols — to find out which ones they remember while their brains are flooded with the same chemicals released during trauma.

“I guess the Republicans have been debating why does she forget getting home, but that sounds very plausible," she said. “It focuses the brain on whatever stands out at that moment. The things that are not standing out are even more ignored.”

Like other researchers, she could not recall a single case of a sexual assault victim misremembering a known attacker — save for rare instances in which people, often children, were coached into falsely accusing friends and family members....
IN THE COMMENTS: Michael K said: "I initially thought she had recovered memories but I have come to the conclusion that she is lying."

The Senators and pundits were operating under rules of engagement that put it off limits to inquire into whether Christine Blasey Ford might be lying. That led them into a lot of discussion of the mysteries of memory, and if the science got weak or bad, it might be because it stood in for something else that they were committed not to talk about. I'd like to see some serious defense of whatever good memory science there might be out there, but the WaPo article is not serious. It's propaganda, purporting to straighten us out on the science, but exploiting science in service to a political end.

337 comments:

1 – 200 of 337   Newer›   Newest»
Michael K said...

I initially thought she had recovered memories but I have come to the conclusion that she is lying.

There are too many changes in the story. Changes that are convenient or which help her version.

rehajm said...

I initially thought she had recovered memories but I have come to the conclusion that she is lying.

I went straight to lying. If operatives were inventing a story calculated for maximum political gain and minimum exposure to perjury it would look exactly like this.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I'm pleased to report that I didn't use junk science in my opposition to Ford.

She was straight up lying about Kavanaugh. The first disclosure said she was attacked by 4 boys when she was in her late teens. That may or not be true. I really don't care about her psychodama bullshit.

Yancey Ward said...

I actually had little respect for the "false memory" arguments from the the Right, too, but for an entirely different reason- I don't think adults are very prone to such things. After the holes in her story became too big, the easiest and most likely explanation was that Ford was lying.

Surely Ford knows and remembers how she got to and from parties as a teenager- I remember these details decades later, and I am the same age as Ford. I might not be able to tell you how I got to and from each and every particular party, but my answer would not be "I have no idea"- I would have a good idea- it would either be method A, method B, etc. The "I don't know" answer is designed to prevent the questioning of witnesses who might remember which parties specifically.

Henry said...

Did Ford ever say that she had recovered memories? I thought she fairly consistently said she remembered the event, but kept it secret. This is a question outside of any inconsistencies in her story. I simply don't remember her claiming that the memories were recovered.

JAORE said...

The woman's memories must be believed.

Right?

That's why he said/she said is a failure UNLESS there is other evidence. The relatively recent ability to use DNA as an identifier has found many guilty and many innocent.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Mara Mather, a professor at the University of Southern California, has performed laboratory studies in which volunteers are given electric shocks or subjected to loud noises while they look at a set of symbols — to find out which ones they remember while their brains are flooded with the same chemicals released during trauma.
Do you think there might be a methodology issue, there?
Do journalists believe psychologists are scientists?

Rob said...

“She could not recall a single case of a sexual assault victim misremembering a known attacker — save for” the times when they did misremember.

Rick said...

save for rare instances in which people, often children, were coached into falsely accusing friends and family members....

Well we know that could never have occurred here since she'd have no reason to accuse this particular person.

narciso said...

The post ignores Ford's own research into the subject quelle surprise.

Lost My Cookies said...

They didn't use junk science. They used the witness testimony and an FBI investigation.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger Yancey Ward said...
. . .
Surely Ford knows and remembers how she got to and from parties as a teenager- I remember these details decades later, and I am the same age as Ford. I might not be able to tell you how I got to and from each and every particular party, but my answer would not be "I have no idea"- I would have a good idea- it would either be method A, method B, etc.

As I have been reminded, Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attack is not her only perfect, crystal clear memory of the party.
She also remembers that she drank exactly one beer. How can you remember that you only drank one beer, and yet have conflicting or absent memories of the place, date, and the people who were there?
I guess a democrat will have to explain it to me.

rhhardin said...

Total Recall (2012) says it's dangerous to sign up for false memories that are in fact real but repressed.

Levi Starks said...

Chivalry demands that we give her an “out”.
Allowing that her memories may be true to her, but false in reality denies her the respect that she actually deserves, which is to be called a liar. No good deed goes unpunished.

Oso Negro said...

I stick by my “Chrissy, Teen Slut” theory. I think it will eventually be substantiated when anyone bothers to look into her past.

Sydney said...

Memory is very faulty. I thought this was a well known truth. Isn't that why the criminal justice system generally requires witnesses to make a charge stick? When did it change?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

1980's High school. No corroboration with any witnesses. No actual rape in her story. Lots to gain politically.

THE TIMING. The proof that it's all a lie is over-whelming.

traditionalguy said...

It's the Method Acting, stupid. Which is a self induced hypnosis that you are the character you are playing. Hence the necessary drug use and near insanity when sober of method actresses.

Michael K said...

I simply don't remember her claiming that the memories were recovered.

No but they "came up" during "couples therapy." The therapist's notes, of course, have not been turned over to the committee staff, nor the polygraph records.

becauseIdbefired said...

The problem with Ford's allegations is you really can't know, one way or the other. Think she is a liar? You hate the victim. Think she is telling the truth? You are willing to stop a judicial nominee on the basis of a weak memory from 35 years ago.

The perfect political tool, and the propaganda cuts only one way, with our left leaning press, and as much rational thought is not allowed due to victim status.

The strongest case Republicans can make is that Democrats used a traumatized victim who wished to remain anonymous to advance their political agenda. (I do not believe Ford wanted to remain anonymous. What is the purpose of sending an anonymous, poison letter regarding this matter?)

This is why we need some kind of standard. Is "more likely than not" the good standard, as Collins indicated was OK for individual senators to adopt? If you think the Ford episode was good for the country, perhaps you do.

I think it was bad for the country, because nothing was proven, and all that has happened is people's pre-existing views were reinforced. Nothing wrong with reinforcing views, but the reinforcing ought to be based on something concrete.

The result of Ford is the country is a bit more polarized, and our senses a bit more dulled to evidence.

Fritz said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
. . .
As I have been reminded, Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attack is not her only perfect, crystal clear memory of the party.
She also remembers that she drank exactly one beer. How can you remember that you only drank one beer, and yet have conflicting or absent memories of the place, date, and the people who were there?
I guess a democrat will have to explain it to me.


Don't worry; they've assigned top psychologists to do studies to come to the right conclusion.

J Scott said...

"When did it change?"

Like the usefullness of the polygraph or the dunking stool, it depends on the political winds at the time.

James K said...

“Like other researchers, she could not recall a single case of a sexual assault victim misremembering a known attacker”

Misremembering, no. But outright lying? Happens a lot more than the left would like to admit.

Renee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

I think I remember Ann Margret molesting me when I was younger. I have to say those were the days!

Sally said...

See Althaus (!) v. Cohen, 756A2d1156 (Pa. 2000). 15 year old girl claimed sexual abuse by parents and parents friends. Action against psychotherapist who supported girl even though she suspected or knew claims were false.

Henry said...

No but they "came up" during "couples therapy." The therapist's notes, of course, have not been turned over to the committee staff, nor the polygraph records.

Yes, but again, I believe her story was that she had kept the memories secret, not that she had forgotten them. Problems with recovered memories is relevant in some cases, but not this one.

AllenS said...

I think that it's a lie that Christine Blasey Ford said she only had one beer.

Professional lady said...

I guess Mara Mathers hasn't heard about those DNA tests that have resulted in all those wrongly convicted sex offenders being released from prison. In many of those cases, the victim was absolutely sure of the identify of the attacker.

Renee said...

I feel violently ill, since that past two weeks have exploited very real experiences of friends and family.

It's like stating if I don't believe Dr Ford, then I don't believe them. Even though in their circumstances I would be the very witness to collaborate their testimony.

The dark money that created this mess, is truly evil.

Lucien said...

Maybe with enough perspective Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh will be seen as highlighting the wisdom of statutes of limitation. Thirty years is too long, especially when, in the interim: a) one accused person changes from a teenage kid to a possible SCOTUS nominee in a Romney administration and the other writes a book about how drunk he was in high school, including reference to another drunken student who could be the first accused.

Char Char Binks said...

False memory used to be a thing, but then it wasn't when a Supreme Court seat was at stake.

Anyway, I believe CBF. She was groped by a minor, then he stopped, and she kept silent about it for 35 years, and I don't care.

Krumhorn said...

I never for a second have thought that she misidentified Kavanagh. From the outset, I took her as a resist at any cost Joan of Arc wanna be leftie. The blanket of warm approval cast over her by everyone who speaks her name (including the unctuous use of her academic title rather than the more appropriate Bitch Ford) will ensure that other rage-filled activists step forward for their 15 minutes to bask in the comforting glow of general uncritical acceptance to slime the next nominee.

She’s a lying prevaricating dissembling falsifying liar. In other words, she flat out lied.

- Krumhorn

ps. She’s a fucking liar

-

Rick said...

Yes, but again, I believe her story was that she had kept the memories secret, not that she had forgotten them. Problems with recovered memories is relevant in some cases, but not this one.

The factual assertion recovered memory is not relevant is wrong since it requires knowledge "her story" is indeed factual. In reality that is an unknown.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

We cannot ask liars if they are lying - because female D.

glenn said...

When you arrive at the only conclusion the event timeline supports and everybody who thinks they are anybody puts that conclusion off limits for discussion there’s only one rational conclusion. They are lying. When it became known that Ms. Fords letter was in Sen. Feinstein’s possession in July and surfaced in September you knew the whole story was b***snort.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Henry said...

Yes, but again, I believe her story was that she had kept the memories secret, not that she had forgotten them. Problems with recovered memories is relevant in some cases, but not this one.

Does everyone with recovered memories recognize that they were recovered? Is it not possible for the same process that "recovers" the memory to also "recover" the idea that you've always remembered the event?

( This is an honest question, I'm not trying to state an opinion one way or the other. )

CWJ said...

The "junk science" article was front paged on MSN yesterday. Me? I thought why focus on this, when there was so much else that was beyond doubt that undermined CBF's story. But I knew the answer.

Trumpit said...

IN THE COMMENTS: Michael K said: "I initially thought she had recovered memories but I have come to the conclusion that she is lying."

I've ALWAYS thought, since he admitted to a drug habit, that Michael K is a demented fascist troll hopped up on pills. When has he ever called Schlump a "liar?" Every time he comments, I consider it an affront to decency and the truth. I now scroll past his ugly mug as fast as I can.

Michael K said...

Problems with recovered memories is relevant in some cases, but not this one.

Without the therapist's records, we will never know.

Of course, I don't care because I have concluded she is a liar,

I wonder if that ex-boyfriend whose credit card she used has records ?

Mr. D said...

The scrubbing of the internet history is a tell. As is the desire to not pursue charges with the relevant law enforcement authorities. And since no one she mentions can remember the events she describes, it’s clear that the tale was supposed to be a one-punch knockout. If the Republicans really want to be ruthless, they could leak the FBI findings.

m stone said...

We shouldn't use the term "recovered memory." Memories are reconstructed according to many researchers. Not reproduced. More likely to be unreliable.

David Bjorklund edited "False-Memory creation in Children and Adults" and Robert A. Baker edited "Child Sexual Abuse and False Memory Syndrome," two illuminating reads. Both go back almost twenty years, but were primary sources for a book I researched eight years ago. I'm sure recent studies show more now.

M

Michael K said...

I now scroll past his ugly mug as fast as I can.

Please do. What you have might be contagious even via electronic transmission.

Renee said...

I don't have 'recovered memories', but I definitely have had my memory refreshed. Some incident or event will have myself go back to a memory I haven't acknowledged for years. I don't think about terrible or great events in my life every single day. Some memories are not recalled for years, simply because it's not relevant to the day to day activities of life.

I get that a person may not have spoken about an tragic event, my issue is that Dr Ford was unable to recall any memory of a location or time frame when she had weeks/months to refresh her memory.

rhhardin said...

More attention should be paid to recovered memories of muggings.

Michael K said...


Blogger Mr. D said...
The scrubbing of the internet history is a tell.


Yes. That and the changing recollections illustrated so well by Mitchel's report.

Krumhorn said...

Resist by any means necessary!!

- Krumhorn

William said...

With a tip of the hat to Col. Sherman Potter: "HORSE HOCKEY"

Henry said...

Ignorance is bliss said...

Does everyone with recovered memories recognize that they were recovered?

Now we're getting into inception territory :)

Henry said...

Where is Proust when you need him?

gahrie said...

It's propaganda, purporting to straighten us out on the science, but exploiting science in service to a political end.

You mean like climate change?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I cannot imagine anyone wanting to take Ford's class or hire her as a professional. (not even her loyalists)

That's OK - she has other loyal leftists pouring money into go-fund-the-leftist.

Howard said...

If you are idiotlogical, she has to be either truthful or a liar, depending on what team you are a loyal lockstep fan of. There are lots of tells going both ways, but no corroboration, no blockage.

Basil Duke said...

We're over-thinking this. The fact that she, or someone working on her behalf, bleach bitted her social media history prior to the detonation of the "Brett Tried to Finger Me Sometime During Either the Carter or Reagan Administrations" bombshell, is, in and of itself, a huge ass 'tell.' Ford is almost certainly a mad dog, door scratching, caterwauling lefty. Her internet rantings would have vividly exposed her as such. This was a shabby political hit by which a pussy hatter lied about an exceptionally decent man. Nothing more. Senate lefties orchestrated the hit and the commie media ruthlessly communicated the narrative. Thank God Kavanaugh and Graham fought back, and Uncle Donnie stood tall, as per.

Gospace said...

The first two comments by Michael K and rehajm cover everything that needs be said..

Freder Frederson said...

You are willing to stop a judicial nominee on the basis of a weak memory from 35 years ago.

It was not a weak memory. The memory of the event and the people involved was very strong. She forgot details from before and after the event, but not the assault itself.

I was willing to stop a judicial nominee because his account is simply not credible and he lied to congress. His attainment of a perfect control of alcohol consumption from his very first sip of beer is contradicted by common sense and the recollections of his best friend. He also lied about the entries in his yearbook. Pile that on top of the obfuscations and outright lies about his time with Ken Starr and in the Bush White House and he does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court.

Otto said...

Just think what her two sons will think when the family boards a plane on the way for a Carribbean vacation paid for by online donations " our whore mother is a good liar".

Prediction: in the next few years her husband will file for a divorce.
This women has ruined her family.

tim in vermont said...

It turns out to be eerily straightforward to set up the conditions to give someone a false memory. Simply introduce an authority expert, mix falsehood with reality, and apply social pressure. The result is unmistakable—a false memory gains very real traction in someone’s mind. - Aria Daniel

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/implant-false-memory.html

Feb 2016. So this was then, today it's "Junk Science" and inferences drawn from an exposure to meaningless symbols by a nearly meaningless type of stress is the "real deal."

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Henry said...

Where is Proust when you need him?

Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.

Hagar said...

I have very vivid memories of things that could not possibly have taken place - maybe from something I have dreamed - but they are flash memories and do not make up a story such as Blasey Ford's and they do not conveniently go hazy on anything that can be proven to be impossible.

Freder Frederson said...

The fact that she, or someone working on her behalf, bleach bitted her social media history prior to the detonation of the "Brett Tried to Finger Me Sometime During Either the Carter or Reagan Administrations" bombshell, is, in and of itself, a huge ass 'tell.'

No its not. Any rational person who was entering this battle would do exactly the same. She knew the shit was going to hit the fan, why give your enemies ammunition?

DKWalser said...

Two quick comments: Several years ago, a close family member wanted our help in confronting someone who had assaulted her in her youth. The assault had happened at a family reunion and was perpetrated by one of our male cousins. The victim had very clear memories of the attack and of her attacker. There was only one problem with her account, the attack took place when she was 5 years old -- which meant her attacker was an infant at the time. (I'm NOT saying noting happened to her. I am saying her very clear memory of who was her attacker was clearly wrong.)

Second: A few years ago, I was interviewed by the US Attorney's office as a potential witness in a trial. The government was prosecuting an attorney who had assisted one of my clients with a transaction. While the transaction was NOT a subject of trial, the US Attorney's office was interested in my observations in working with the attorney who had worked with my client. So, I was being interviewed about a transaction that had taken place more than 3 years prior to the interview. My client had been contemplating a complex business acquisition, and he hired this attorney to render a tax opinion on the transaction.

During the interview, I was asked how the tax opinion letter was obtained. I outlined the process. I remembered it well. Before the transaction was consummated, we had discussed the 'deal' with the attorney in detail and shared with him all the relevant documents. He'd offered some suggestions for improving the structure that we'd implemented. After the acquisition, the attorney had sent a draft of his opinion letter for our review and I had carefully vetted the factual representations in the letter to make sure they were accurate. I'd had two other people in our office perform a similar review. If the factual representations upon which the opinion was based were not accurate, the opinion itself was not worth anything, so this was a critical part of the process.

Then, the Assistant US Attorney interviewing me read to me the factual representations contained in the opinion letter. I'd never heard (or read) the language before. I told her that I'd have never agreed to many of those factual representations as being accurate.

What happened? In my career, I've been involved in hiring outside counsel to draft tax opinions dozens of times. The process, with this one exception, always works as described above. So, when asked in the interview, my mind called up the memory of one of those other times and just slid in the names, faces, and subject matter of this particular client situation. It wasn't until I got back to my computer and called up an email exchange between me and the attorney that I 'remembered' what had really happened. In this case, 'to protect attorney/client privilege' the attorney refused to send me a draft copy or the final copy of the opinion letter. He worked directly with the client. I had be furious and swore I'd never forget. I'd forgotten.

narciso said...

It's like the Eloi klaxons summoning then back to the bunker, or gaslighting.

tim in vermont said...

I was willing to stop a judicial nominee because his account is simply not credible

Four witnesses NAMED BY HER didn't really anything remotely similar. One of those witnesses was pressured to change her story by a former FBI agent who quit when DJT became POTUS to join a political outfit on the left. This was a smear tactic that could be recycled and used against anybody.

But if you think he lied, my suggestion would be a full investigation, but, wait for it, she says "never mind."

Howard said...

yes, exactly like climate change. The truth is global warming from CO2 is real. Simple physics. What is not know are the consequences. Naturally, the left uses the 100% AGW is real and extends that certainty to Armageddon consequences which is not part of the science. The right takes the chicken little bullshit by the left and claims that radiative physics is wrong and CO2 doens't cause warming.

It's both religious-surrogate cult thinking

Yancey Ward said...

Why would it be ammunition?

tim in vermont said...

why give your enemies ammunition?

Why put evidence out there that might lead to the truth? And not just anybody can erase their web presence, you need help from people in powerful places.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

I'm with Michael. I think she is lying.

There are just too many inconsistencies and wierdnesses for it to be faulty memory.

1) The door triggering the memory but the door was put in before she says.

2) No details whatever. (By itself might be memory but too convenient with everything else)

3) The FBI agent Monica McClean and her involvement in drafting the July letter. Also, she apparently sat behind Ford during her testimony.

4) The lie about not knowing about polygraphs. Possible lie about not helping McClean prepare for polygraphy test

5) Other stuff.

I think the Senate needs to give it a rest for 30 days or so but then I think there needs to be an investigation into Ford and possible perjury. If warrented, there then needs to be a prosecution.

John Henry

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Basil Duke said...

We're over-thinking this. The fact that she... bleach bitted her social media history...is... a huge... 'tell.'

I disagree. While it is certainly consistent with attempting to hide a highly partisan past, it is also consistent with an expectation that, once your statement comes out, partisans on the other side will harass you and anyone associated with you.

If I had an entirely truthful, but politically charged, accusation to make, I would seriously consider how to minimize the harassment of my friends and family. Reducing my internet footprint would certainly be among the things I'd consider.

AllenS said...

Freder, I think Christine Blasey Ford and her lawyers and backers figured that they could easily get Kavanaugh to drop out. It's nothing more than that. When he didn't drop out, the attempts go get more women to come forward with their stories of abuse by Kavanaugh fell apart when they walked their stories back. There was no there, there.

Spiros Pappas said...

Check this out:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/11/17/the-revenge-of-the-repressed/

According to a conservative estimate, between 1988 and 1994, over one million people were "helped" by their psychotherapists to recover putative "memories" of child sexual abuse. Oh man, think of the families torn apart by this crap. Sex abuse went from being virtually non-existent to a full blown epidemic.

tim in vermont said...

The truth is global warming from CO2 is real. Simple physics.

Thanks for the laugh! But anyway, this is like when a supposed "scientist" said "Why should I give you my data when all you are going to do is try to find something wrong with it?"

"Why give your enemies ammunition?"

rhhardin said...

Now we're getting into inception territory

That's one of the films I bailed out of very early. I was looking at the progress arrow and thinking how much more of this will I have to sit through: it looks like a lot.

With many such DVDs I try again after a year and bail out again.

I just got Knock Knock and lasted only a few minutes. It's supposed to be sexy but I didn't wait. The plot is too stupid and an hour and a half looms before me. Are there no writers? Happily married man succumbs to temptation or he doesn't, who cares. What's the motivation.

tim in vermont said...

Reducing my internet footprint would certainly be among the things I'd consider.

How would you erase it so thoroughly that government investigators couldn't find it?

Rick said...

Freder Frederson said...
I was willing to stop a judicial nominee because his account is simply not credible and he lied to congress. His attainment of a perfect control of alcohol consumption from his very first sip of beer is contradicted by common sense and the recollections of his best friend.


Freder is lying yet again. Kavanaugh admitted at times drinking more than he should have. There simply isn't anything the left won't invent to justify itself. Kavanaugh was appointed by a Republican and everything else is ex post facto rationalization. If it wasn't this justification it would be another.

Kansas City said...

I do not understand how the blackout worked on Ford's entire personal history. Somehow, she and her supporters succeeded in keeping secret virtually her entire life, including what she did in high school.

rhhardin said...

Every climate science result should be accompanied by the necessary files and a makefile to get the result. It would even benefit the author. If what they actually did is to be inspected, they'll be pretty careful instead of fudging.

Mark said...

At this stage, the client has no conscious memories of ever being the victim of childhood sexual abuse and is likely to firmly reject any suggestion of such abuse.

Sounds like a lot of college campuses, where female students are taught that, although they may not have realized it, they are all victims of rape and other sexual assault.

tim in vermont said...

Oh look, the Nova video is now gone, at least on my browser. Hopefully it's due to demand.

Rick said...

I disagree. While it is certainly consistent with attempting to hide a highly partisan past, it is also consistent with an expectation that, once your statement comes out, partisans on the other side will harass you and anyone associated with you.

If she expected to remain anonymous why would she have expected her statement to come out? Her entire testimony could have been anonymous and that could have been achieved in a number of different ways. It's telling she both chose none of those paths and also scrubbed her internet suggesting she knew it would become public.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

The other thing that should happen is for President Trump to go to California in the next week or two and hold a massive Republican get out the vote rally. He can say something like:

"I understand that you have nobody to vote for but you sure have some people to vote against! Could ChiSpyDiFi's and Mad Maxine's challengers possibly be any worse? They might even be an improvement.

In any event, they will be freshies and will have no power at all. This will negate their influence whatever their views. It will also be easier to defeat a 1 termer in 2020 or 2024 than a deeply rooted incumbent.

So, California Republicans and others who love their country, get out and vote. Get some new faces in.

MAGA!"

John Henry

Bill Peschel said...

"I'd like to see some serious defense of whatever good memory science there might be out there"

I would have to guess there isn't any, because memories are fallible. Police know witness memory is fallible. All officers learn this after working their first vehicle accident, when they can't correlate all of the witness accounts.

As a general rule, however, accounts closest to the incident are considered more accurate than accounts given later. This is why, when you look at the witness accounts of the JFK assassination, you'll find that those questioned at the time or soon after tend to be more consistent (and point to Oswald as the shooter) than later accounts which tend to get wilder and wilder.

Ray - SoCal said...

I agree with Michael K and Traditional Guy

It was a political hit job that almost worked, and with any other past GOP president it probably would have.

1. She kept changing her story on anything that could be checked.
2. I believe she self hypnotized herself on the story.
3. All the prep work that was done. Internet scrubbing, two door story, physical appearance at hearing, use of fake grovelly voice by chin down, etc.
4. Not willing to press charges

My guess is this was meant as a fast attack, that would result in the nomination being pulled or voted down, and not designed for real scrutiny.

I’m amazed at how little about her and her husbands background has come out.

Francisco D said...

CBF is essentially claiming eidetic memory of Brett Kavanaugh assaulting her and laughing as he left the room.

People have mental photographs or movies of highly salient positive and negative events in their lives. For example, I can picture the athletic highlight of my HS life quite vividly. I also recall being mugged on the "El" at age 12 in a similar manner.

These photographs or movies may blur around the edges, but they are extraordinarily difficult to repress because they are so meaningful.

It is possible to forget a life moment that seemed inconsequential and then recall it with clarity when it's significance becomes apparent. However, that is not a traumatic event, it is the opposite.

CBF has very limited training in cognitive and clinical psychology as is obvious by her testimony.

Big Mike said...

It never occurred to me that Ford was telling the truth, but I had a bit of an advantage. Having lived in the Washington suburbs since 1969 I was aware of the reputation of the wealthy female teenagers of Holton-Arms and it’s Northern Virginia equivalent, Madeira, for getting what they want, when they want, and with whom they want.

Science, real science, is based on paradigms, frameworks for understanding the evidence. Once one shifts from “that poor girl suffered at the hands of young Brett Kavanaugh” to “that grown woman is making it all up,” all the evidence fits nicely. She can’t remember any of the details that would permit her story to be corroborated? Uh huh. Her own parents and siblings wouldn’t sign an affidavit attesting to her honesty. That’s suggestive, isn’t it? She’s afraid to fly to DC but has previously flown all over the world, including numerous flights to DC? Suuuuuure.

This is the third of three hoaxes made up out of whole cloth to discredit the Trump administration. The first was Russian Collusion, for which not a shred of evidence has ever been found. Indeed, such evidence as has been found points to the Clinton campaign playing tootsie with the Russians. Second was Charlottesville. The third has been Christine Blasey Ford.

Martin said...

I thought all along that she was either lying or had come to sincerely believe something that did not happen the way she remembered it.

I accept that if she was subjected to what she described, her memory and actions at the time may have been confused, distorted, etc. But that does not provide any corroboration for her story--and without corroborating evidence or statements (the one person she named denied it), we are left with nothing actionable.

And Ford's lies about fear of flying and ignorance of polygraphs, and that we know she was being coached by attorneys and other operatives, makes her not credible at all.

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but as Mitchell said, this fails even a "preponderance of evidence" test and no prosecutor of any quality would touch it.

Renee said...

"I do not understand how the blackout worked on Ford's entire personal history. Somehow, she and her supporters succeeded in keeping secret virtually her entire life, including what she did in high school."

Even though she was identified, she was more or less treated as if her identity was never revealed. I tend to agree with this decision. No need to get ugly, just focus on the lack of evidence (time/place) and the named witnesses who did not collaborate with her story.

tim in vermont said...

Rick has a point too.

I still think that their big problem with this tactic is that the target has no way to retreat and must fight to the end, so the weaknesses in their case will be exposed.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Rick said...

If she expected to remain anonymous why would she have expected her statement to come out?

I know that she says she wanted to remain anonymous. Did she say that she expected to remain anonymous? She certainly should not have expected that, after giving her information to a Democrat.

Mark said...

one accused person changes from a teenage kid to a possible SCOTUS nominee in a Romney administration

That raises a point that needs some exploring -- Just exactly where the hell has that weasel Romney been during all of this?? He's running for Senate. He wants to be the next McCain or Flake or Corker who will be the anti-Trump. Where the hell has he been on Kavanaugh?? He's his guy, after all.

tim in vermont said...

Nobody at the party drove her home? Did she call somebody? Run out the door and never say good bye? Or did she have "one beer" because she had a drivers license which would place the assault in a time when BK couldn't have been the perp? d

Sorry, that's logic, we are supposed to use feelings.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

oh FFS! "Recovered Memories" are like 'recovered ballots' for LibDemProgs.

they seem to surface magically when they are in trouble

reader said...

So this post made me think of the McMartin Preschool case (which I believe was brought up in comments to another post). So I wanted to refresh my memories of that case. I then found an article called The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial: A Commentary by Doug Linder (2003).

Here is a quote that caught my eye (just swap feminists or media out for experts and women out for children).

Another juror, Mark Bassett, singled out "experts" for blame: "I thought some of the expert testimony about the children told you more about the expert than the child. I mean, if the expert says children are always 100% believable and then you have a child who is not believable, either the expert is extremely biased or they've never seen anything like that child before."

D 2 said...

I believe the girlfriend who - when identified as being one of the other 5 at the party - said it never happened. I believe she would certainly remember being alone on a couch with the (yet-as-unnamed) host while the other three disappeared, with her friend then running out and getting home in some unknown capacity without her. When 2 girls go to a party together, and 1 leaves, that's the sort of thing that gets remembered. And generally talked about the next week. None of which seemingly occurred.

Why not believe her, Cricket? Are you calling that woman a liar?

tim in vermont said...

Every climate science result should be accompanied by the necessary files and a makefile to get the result. It would even benefit the author.

That kind of thinking would get you drummed out of climate "science' sooner than quicker. Try getting published in a major journal on climate with that attitude!

Darrell said...

CO2 is a lagging indicator, not a leading one. The Earth warms (specifically the oceans) then CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise. Enough studies have show this to be the case that this is now the real scientific consensus. Except among those with a political agenda.

Rigelsen said...

Like other researchers, she could not recall a single case of a sexual assault victim misremembering a known attacker....

Maybe the “reporter” could have checked with the Innocence Project and found many examples of defendants falsely convicted of sexual assault based on eyewitness testimony. The “science” is propaganda. Maybe it applies to electric shocks, but there is lots of memory science with respect to actual criminal situations that casts a cloud on this kind of eyewitness identification.

tim in vermont said...

Do her parents remember her coming home from a party distraught?

Jersey Fled said...

Recovered memory is often cited be people claiming to have been abducted by space aliens.

BTW has Mather's study been replicated by other independent studies? I read recently that two thirds of all studies in the field of Psychology cannot be replicated.

rhhardin said...

I put down alien adbuction examination memories as memories of being dressed in public as an infant, memories that had no hook to categorize themselves with at the time.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Howard wrote:
The truth is global warming from CO2 is real.
Nothing oversimplified there!
All scince can say "is real" is that atmospheric C02 is increasing due to fossil fuel use. That's it. Everything else is specualtion, correlation, and probabilities.
Even the IPCC report doesn't go so far as to say that "global warming from CO2 is real." The IPCC gives confidence intervals. Politicians use absolutes.

Fernandistein said...

"Like other researchers, she could not recall a single case of a sexual assault victim misremembering a known attacker...."

Maybe the “reporter” could have checked with the Innocence Project and found many examples of defendants falsely convicted of sexual assault based on eyewitness testimony.


"Known attacker" means someone you already knew, like the guy next door, not a stranger you identified from among other strangers.

Anyway, I'm taking a hint from the Pope and..."Francis is convinced that Satan is ultimately to blame for sexual abuse scandal."

Could anyone recognize Satan if they didn't already know him?

rhhardin said...

I notice a baby mouse walking across the computer desk. He's under the laptop cooling fan at the moment.

Ordering come mouse cubes from Amazon. Transplant the family to a distant field.

tim in vermont said...

Julia Shaw: So the recipe for creating a false memory was always the same for every single participant.

I’ve gained their trust because I’ve introduced this event that they know happened, that they have all this vivid memory for quite often. And so now I give positive reinforcement and say, “You did such a great job. Let’s hope you have as many details for the next event.”

So the other event, which your parents reported happening, was when you were 14 years old, you initiated a physical fight and the police called your parents.

When you were 12, you initiated a physical fight and the police called your parents.

They said it happened in Kelowna in the fall. You were with Ryan when it happened? And it was out of character.

Participant 1: What?

Shaw: Were you close with Connor

Participant 1: Yeah, he was my best friend.

Participant 2: Honestly, I don’t remember. Like, I don’t know what you’re talking about....
- PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/implant-false-memory.html

Read the whole transcript, seriously.

Renee said...

"Do her parents remember her coming home from a party distraught?"

I am assuming whoever does the research, not only retraced the steps of Judge Kavanaugh in 1982, but also of Dr Ford's steps. For all we know she may have been at camp/vacation on possible dates when the party may have occurred.

Fernandistein said...

tim in vermont, your avatar looked like some sort of undersea sphincter until I looked at the bigger version. Then it still does.

Darrell said...

The Democrats basically admitted that it was a political hit. Last week an Obama Administration adviser said that allegations and accusations--even absent evidence or validity--were legitimate political tools.

rhhardin said...

There's the theory of the spontaneous generation of mice from dust and grey rags. There's lots of dust.

rcocean said...

What does it matter if she's lying or she believes what she says is true?

Ford's story was a fake from the beginning.

Ford couldn't say where it happened, kept changing who was at the party, & couldn't say when it happened. She told no one at the time. And the people she named, including her best friend, didn't remember ANY party like the one she described.

Her story had ZERO support. No Support AT ALL, except her word. At a minimum, we should expect women who report sexual assaults to come forward in a reasonable amount of time, and identify the date and the place of the crime.

BTW, its interesting that no one talked to the parents of Ford. Surely, they would remember driving her around when she was 15, and what she was doing.

James K said...

"Known attacker" means someone you already knew, like the guy next door, not a stranger you identified from among other strangers.

Yes, but the point is that women have falsely accused people known to them. So when a woman such as Ford accuses someone known to her, it is not automatically true. I would guess that some "known attackers" are among those exonerated by the Innocence Project.

Fernandistein said...

Could anyone recognize Satan if they didn't already know him?

Know her.

tim in vermont said...

F, it's a squirrel eating a donut. Not sure what's going on with your monitor.

rhhardin said...

The law does not do justice. It does the law. It works better that way.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Howard said...

The truth is global warming from CO2 is real.

Except, if you look at how the temperature record was established, As I have, you will see the problems in that statement.

Supposedly, there is about 0.5 to 0.8 degrees warming over the past 100 or so years. I don't think anyone has ever claimed more than 0.8, have they?

Yet the temperature records for most of that period are shit for this kind of precision. Uncalibrated thermometers, moving thermometers, inadequate coverage, untrained people reading and recording the temps, heat islands and much more.

Here is a thought experiment for you: How would you measure the average temperature in your living room over the course of a month or so?

It might be possible to determine a "global average temperature" (there is not even agreement on what that means) to within +/- 5 degrees or so. I would not even bet real money on that.

Saying that there is 0.5-0.8 degrees warming is flat out bullshit.

In the past 30 years or so we have had satellite temperature data which is, supposedly more accurate. Even it has problems with degradation over time, always degrading to show hotter than actual. Supposedly this can be corrected for. Maybe. Even that shows a pretty flat long-term trend.

We may have global warming. We may have global cooling. It is impossible to know.

John Henry

rcocean said...

You'll notice that all three accusations against Kavanaugh were deliberately vague and involve less serious crimes. Ford doesn't accuse him of rape, just groping her. Ramirez doesn't even directly accuse him of wagging his dingdong in her face. No she just sees Kavanaugh "pull up his pants". And Swetnick sees Kavanaugh at "Gang Rape Parties".

tim in vermont said...

For all we know she may have been at camp/vacation on possible dates when the party may have occurred.

No dates except it must have happened at a time when K could have been the guilty party. How conveeenient.

Francisco D said...

I read recently that two thirds of all studies in the field of Psychology cannot be replicated.

A lot of "important" Psychology studies have not been replicated. However, responsible social scientists do not count on single studies to inform them. They count on the "tree of knowledge" that comes with supporting or disproving certain aspects of theories through research. Theories are (or were in my day) constantly being pruned by new research. That research cannot prove a theory to be true, but it can disprove some or all aspects of it.

Pruning can also result in new growth where a theory takes off in a slightly different direction. It is a dynamic process. Anyone who tells you that the science is settled is a charlatan.

rhhardin said...

Not only are there now sunlight mosquitos, but there are daylight mice. They're probably from Asia as well.

Darrell said...

This "false memory" business is a dodge--a deflection. Republicans never used that as the defense.
The defense was that it never happened. People who couldn't or wouldn't call her an outright liar mentioned "false memory" as a possibility.

The Media--especially the elites like the NYT and WaPo are useless and dangerous--Leftist liars and propagandists.

rcocean said...

I thought Mitchell was going off the rails with the questions about Lie detectors, lawyers, and how the letter got leaked, but when her analysis came out, I finally understood.

If Ford couldn't remember details or keep her story straight about what happened 3 months ago, how could she tell the truth about something that happened 30 years ago.

Virgil Hilts said...

I think I first read about the John Dean stuff here at Althouse. After he turned, he testified at Watergate hearings concerning his WH conversations; conversations with RMN about potential obstruction, etc. Pretty important stuff - maybe the most important conversations he had ever had in his life. At the hearings he showed a brilliant memory and became known as the “human tape recorder”. But then the Committee discovered there were real tape recordings. Dean turned out to be "more like a historical novelist;" "He was almost never right in his recollections of the content of the conversations, and he was usually not even close."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/subliminal/201205/the-illusions-memory

rhhardin said...

I could order a terrier. The Doberman is useless with mice. She's just sleeping by the desk.

rcocean said...

I don't care if it was an incredibly important "Job interview" and a trial. We need to have standards, and we can't ruin people's lives just because someone tells an unsupported story about a 30 year old incident.

Someone on the radio this AM, said "This will cause us to go back to the days, when we didn't believe women" -

Other radio guy: "You mean when Bill Clinton was President?"

rcocean said...

Rh - obvious solution: A Cat.

Fernandistein said...

Yes, but the point is that women have falsely accused people known to them. So when a woman such as Ford accuses someone known to her, it is not automatically true.

Oh, I know that. I think phony accusations of rape and "sexual assault" (an almost meaningless term) are more common than real accusations, and figured from the get-go that this strange creature was lying because of the way things got started with her letter + Feinstein.

I would guess that some "known attackers" are among those exonerated by the Innocence Project.

Guess away! If you find some, the trick is to figure out if they're there because of mistaken identity or because of lying.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Jersey Fled said...

BTW has Mather's study been replicated by other independent studies? I read recently that two thirds of all studies in the field of Psychology cannot be replicated.

I guarantee that if it is politically useful to replicate it, then it can be replicated. Where there's a will, there's a way!

Freder Frederson said...

We may have global warming. We may have global cooling. It is impossible to know.

Of course this is complete bullshit. Even without temperature data we have evidence of global warming. The most obvious and visible is the worldwide decline of glaciers (yes, there are a few that are growing but the vast majority, 95%, are shrinking) and ice sheets, especially in the arctic.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I said from the time Blasey Ford came to light that in order to "resolve" the allegation, it would be necessary to say something intelligent about memory. Scott Adams stood out for trying to do so, and Mickey Kaus said a few things.
Did it make sense for the Senate committee to have one or two experts testify--is it possible that both Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh are telling the truth as they know it? How could that be? Maybe focus on the fact that Kavanaugh is in his 50s, and has undergone many background checks--the kind of thing many of us would find to resemble a colonoscopy with no anaesthetic--yet there has never until a few months ago been a suggestion of bad manners, personal impropriety, or criminal acts. What might explain Blasey Ford remembering something in a different way than it actually happened--even the specific detail, which she kept insisting on, of Kavanaugh's role? If the Republican had one expert, the Dems might want another, here we go again.
To say: in 100% of cases where police court evidence eventually appears, and an assault happened, the victim had testified accurately from the beginning, is not much help. In a way we are more interested in cases where police court evidence is not available, or is inconclusive. There are many more accusers than provable cases. What proportion of the accusers are likely to be mistaken or lying? What are the possible reasons why this can happen? Advocates in a particular case are hoping we will lazily jump to the conclusion that roughly 100% of accusers are telling the truth, but that is surely not true.

Michael K said...

Dean turned out to be "more like a historical novelist;"

Dean was a liar and probably the instigator of the Watergate burglary as he wanted to know if Larry O'Brien had anything about his new wife's career as an "escort" in Washington.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Here's a brief overview of how our memories play "tricks" on us. It's mostly about eyewitness accounts of crimes but also includes "flashbulb memories" - memories of dramatic events - and also "false memories": Witness Memory.

False memories is a real issue; it's not junk science and the fact that the Post ran this piece of terrible reporting is pretty shocking. Read about Elizabeth Loftus's work in particular. She's done groundbreaking work on "false" or "implanted" memories.

Loftus on "creating false memories" here: http://staff.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Michael K said...

Even without temperature data we have evidence of global warming

Absolutely true. The glaciers melted.

Thanks, Freder.

Krumhorn said...

One of Ann’s weakest arguments in this sorry affair was to say that Liar Ford had nothing to gain by lying. One can only say that by completely overlooking the ego biscuits dripping with approval sauce that will be thrown at you by lefties grateful for your “sacrifice”.

Resist! By any means necessary!!

Krumhorn

Ken B said...

LONG AGO I RECOMMENDED JULIA SHAW'S BOOK. But you ignored the issue entirely — until your own son raised it. So even now, when you see that the WaPo is propaganda, even now you are vindicating rhhardin.

Krumhorn said...

It wasn’t a false memory; it was simply false.

- Krumhorn

Bay Area Guy said...

"It was a political hit job that almost worked, and with any other past GOP president it probably would have."

It was also a political bluff. They had Mark Judge's book, they had Bart O'Kavanaugh, they had the drinking stories. They had his choir boy persona, they had him coaching his daughters' basketball teams.

They thought the charge would be so toxic that he'd fold under pressure and withdraw. But he stayed and fought and won, because the charge wasn't true.

Matthew Sablan said...

Ford's memory was so selective. What happened a few months ago? Total blank.

Who did this to you? Totes Kavanaugh, yo.

She was handled with kid gloves and given multiple opportunities to show her memory of the event wasn't flawed, and even given the chance to provide the therapist notes to back up her memory. She chose not to do so.

Otto said...

Did CBF say that Kavanaugh raped her?

Michael K said...


Blogger rhhardin said...
I notice a baby mouse walking across the computer desk.


My daughter and I opened the metal can we kept dry dog food in one time and saw six baby mice that had somehow gotten in but couldn't get out.

We carried them down the street so they could visit someone else.

Charlie Currie said...

I'm with Michael K - Ford is a liar. Every word in her letter to Feinstein is a lie, including the and and.

Matthew Sablan said...

I didn't like saying she was mistaken or maybe had a false memory because saying she was mistaken just shifted to: "Well, WHO DID ATTACK HER?" and then if you don't provide a name, the Democrats fall back to: "Then it must have been Kavanaugh!" A recovered or false memory is unfalsfiable. I can't prove that at all.

The only two provable points are: She's lying or he attacked her. The other two are possible, but unprovable. Given how much ELSE she lied about, and that her story of being attacked shifted so frequently, I find it easiest to believe she was lying. Why?

My theory: She never expected to have to make a real statement. That's why she and her beach friends insisted on her anonymity to her representative and Feinstein. She never thought her letter would get leaked, then once it did and journalists showed up at her door, she thought: "Hell, this is Ronan Farrow and his team, and other allies. I'll sink Kavanaugh without having to put my name out there. Hell, Jackie didn't get exposed for a good long time!"

Then... something happened. Kavanaugh didn't crumble. The Republicans didn't silently accept a baseless allegation. She could still have rode it out, but then Feinstein and her lawyers held out on her and didn't let her know she could have had a private testimony with Republican Senators. If she'd done that, her story shifting wouldn't be too bad. The only people who'd know were the Senators! Instead, Feinstein betrayed her a second time and forced her to go public.

gg6 said...

Rather than yearn for whatever "good memory science there might be, I suggest we might better conclude there IS NONE and most likely never will be. Certainly none that will ever unravel Memory from basic human nature and the impact of elements such as intention, ego, belief, and motivation, etc. Not to mention the widespread banality of outright lies, neuroses and fantasy. Not to mention the scrubbing, primping and adornment of 'memory' by 2nd parties such as lawyers, publicists and political handlers.
This is why the "more likely than not" premise is absolutely bullshit in assessing an Accusation. It absolutely HAS to be nothing less than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Just to tie global whatsit (formerly warming) to Ford's recovered memories, both are examples of what Nobelist Richard Feyneman called "Cargo Cult Science"

If you have not read his essay on Cargo Cult Science, you should do so. If you've not read it recently, you should do so again.

Full text here:

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

John Henry

Matthew Sablan said...

"Do you think there might be a methodology issue, there?"

-- My first question is: Did they ask them about it again 30 years later?

Luke Lea said...

Can't we at least identify the therapist and see what school of therapy she belongs to? No doubt investigative journalists are working on this.

Michael K said...

Andy McCarthy joins the"she's lying" team today.

Ford cannot answer basic questions about the alleged assault incident, including how she got to the party and, more to the point, how she got home — many miles away — after escaping the bedroom and running out of the house. She has given multiple versions of when the supposed assault happened and, in her initial claims, 30 years after the fact, she did not name Kavanaugh. As noted above, the witnesses she cited do not support her account.

Moreover, her claims about claustrophobia and fear of flying appear to be specious; and, as Thomas Lipscomb details at Real Clear Politics, Ford’s story about how and why there came to be a second front door to her home (which she attributed to “PTSD-like symptoms” from being attacked by Kavanaugh) is, to say the least, dubious. A number of other questions have not yet been asked, much less answered. Meanwhile, Ford has persisted in refusing to disclose to the Senate the notes of her polygraph and therapy sessions. (Ford maintains that she did not recover the memory of the attack through psychotherapy; it merely helped her understand the consequences. In a thoughtful column, also at Real Clear Politics, Stuart Taylor explains why therapy notes can be highly relevant on this point.)

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Michael K said...

Absolutely true. The glaciers melted.

Not to mention the arctic ice cap completely melting in 2000. Oopsie. I mean 2008. Errr..... 2013?

2020 for sure!

John Henry

Matthew Sablan said...

"It's like stating if I don't believe Dr Ford, then I don't believe them."

-- That's the most insidious thing about this. All the "You probably know a woman who has been raped, and if you don't believe Ford, you're not a safe person to talk to!"

No; I'm a perfectly safe person to talk to. Because if you're my friend or someone I trust, I'm going to listen to you and support you, because I know you. I don't know Ford, so I have to make a judgement on whether she's trustworthy.

A lot of friendships are being wrecked over this, and it is because the political left prefers political power plays and emotional manipulation to a cool looking at facts.

James K said...

Even without temperature data we have evidence of global warming. The most obvious and visible is the worldwide decline of glaciers (yes, there are a few that are growing but the vast majority, 95%, are shrinking) and ice sheets, especially in the arctic.

The phrase "global warming" is generally taken to be an inexorable trend, as opposed to a cycle, or something that has taken place in recent decades but may or may not continue. So yes, there has been warming, most likely. Whether there IS warming, and will continue to be warming, is open to debate. Never mind whether and how much mankind has to do with it, or whether there is anything that can be done about it.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Re global whatsit science:

Predicting the future is hard. But when one can't even predict the past, one should rethink one's methodologies.

John Henry

Matthew Sablan said...

"It was not a weak memory. The memory of the event and the people involved was very strong. She forgot details from before and after the event, but not the assault itself."

-- It was a weak memory. There were only a few facts that remained consistent: One beer, who did it. She couldn't remember who pushed her into the room. Couldn't identify exactly who was talking when. Even this statement is wrong: The people involved at the party was an incredibly weak memory. She changed the list of people all the time! In any other crime, if a witness shifted a story this much, but insisted: "I know Bill did it, I saw him!" we'd be convinced the witness was wrong. Her memory is unreliable, and is directly contradicted by every other person she claimed to have been there.

rhhardin said...

The Doberman has stirred and is sniffing around the cardboard boxes and wires at one end of the computer desk. Perhaps the baby mouse has descended, not finding any food on the computer desk.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I was willing to stop a judicial nominee because his account is simply not credible and he lied to congress."

-- His account is: "I wasn't there." That's completely credible since everyone else says there was no such party. Most of the 'lies to Congress' you were told about have been proven to be the truth. For example, the FFFF, Boofing, Devil's Triangle? People from his high school have said: "Yeah, what Brett says? That's what they meant. He also never said he had perfect control of alcohol; he admitted to drinking too much at times. He just never was black out drunk.

If you're going to call the guy a liar and repeat things you think he said, have the basic courtesy to know the facts.

OldManRick said...

Confessions of a Catholic Boys High School Graduate

I graduated a Catholic Boys high school in the mid 60's. A lot of her story didn't fit what I knew about my classmates and the culture of Catholic Boys High Schools. Although "fallen away", I know devout Catholics who send their children to Catholic Schools who say the culture hasn't changed that much. Things I saw:

Confession of Sins In high school one of the constants was the emphasis on living the decent life. Most of the Kavanaugh types I saw there were probably more devout in high school than in later life. They avoided sins. I could easily see them arguing whether "getting to second base" was a venal or mortal sin since premarital sex was considered a form of adultery. While adultery and even coveting thy neighbor wife (an daughter by extended teachings) were documented in the ten commandments, underage drinking was not included in the Ten Commandments. (It may have been in the fifteen but Mel Brooks as Moses, dropped and broke the last five!)

Sexual Goals Speaking of second base, that was really the most we could hope for at the time. Anything more was out of the question, especially with someone you didn't know well.
Girdles. Do you remember girdles? When dating, many girls wore girdles. They didn't need them for their figures. It was a big warning that "you ain't going nowhere". My homecoming and prom date, Lark, wore one both times, and she certainly didn't need it for her figure. And no, it was not just the girls I dated, it was common, and it continued for the first two years of my college life. Which brings us to Ford's one piece bathing suit. At the time, two piece suits were coming into style - a one piece had the same message and effect as a girdle. BTW, if Kavanaugh was trying to get a one piece suit off, not only was he going for a "home run" (not likely) but he was going for it with the highest degree of difficulty possible. Not very likely.

Public vs Catholic I didn't go through the normal, parochial school to catholic boys school transition. I went to a public junior high. When in the catholic boys school, I never saw any of my junior high friends again (except for the ones who lived in the near by neighborhood). I never saw any of the girls from Jr high. We had two catholic all girls school's with whom we had all our dances, sporting events, mixers, etc. I was considered a rebel because I dated two non catholic school girls as a senior. Lark was probably the only non catholic school girl at my homecoming and prom. She was brave. Ginny had moved in from Texas and her mother (who worked at the library where I worked) introduced me to her during the summer before she went to school. One of the Catholic school girls asked her, "What's life like with Rick?" at a summer party - her "I wouldn't know" response was classic.

Given what I experienced, Christine Ford's story isn't believable.

hombre said...

The lefties evaluate Ford’s claims from the #metoo “believe, believe” perspective without regard for the evidence. This is how they evaluate everything: Believe the template; ignore the evidence.

Or, as Reagan said, “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” It’s what makes them incapable of governing.

rcocean said...

Its funny how so many MSM reporters had a visceral dislike of Kavanaugh.

Too Catholic, too conservative, drank too much, and reminded them of the jocks in HS who got the Cheerleaders and pulled their shorts off in gym class.

Freder Frederson said...

If you're going to call the guy a liar and repeat things you think he said, have the basic courtesy to know the facts.

You are the one distorting the facts. He not only said that he never "blacked out" (which as I understand it means you completely forget where you were and what you did) but he never had memory lapses while drunk. This is ridiculous on its face. He also claimed that any "ralphing" was because of his weak stomach, not from over consumption of alcohol (which is directly contradicted by his own handwriting).

As for the entries in the yearbook. Those terms have never been used to describe drinking games or farting (and the boofing reference doesn't even make sense in that context).

FIDO said...

Okay.

So female memories are foggy.

This means we can't trust their memories.

We should, besides memories, have something else...begins with an 'E'. Althouse...is there a word for 'stuff that supports faulty memories'? Maybe something you can use in a dispute?

Someone should make up some rules for stuff like this...

Deep Runner said...

Democracy Dies In The Darkness of The Washington Post

rcocean said...

The McCarthy article is pretty good. Of course "super-cuck" David French, finally came out with a anti-Ford column on Saturday - after it was all over. Before that, he was writing his usual cucky, "on one hand but on the other hand" articles.

He's the Joe Manchin of national review.

Matthew Sablan said...

"He not only said that he never "blacked out" (which as I understand it means you completely forget where you were and what you did) but he never had memory lapses while drunk."

-- And? Prove he has had memory lapses. Also: Memory lapses while drunk IS what blacking out is. By definition. But, go ahead. Prove that the memories he doesn't have of 30 years ago are from drinking and not because it was 30 years ago. And, for the yearbook: Those terms HAVE been used that way, and we know it because the people who were using them have told us so.

Look, I get it. You hate Kavanaugh, you hate the right, but you have to stop just believing what the people you like tell you. They lie to you. And they'll keep lying to you so long as you keep uncritically believing them.

FIDO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke Lea said...

I found the name of the therapist Ford bought the house from and the kind of therapy she specializes in:

https://goo.gl/NYACCm

https://goo.gl/QurAsi

http://www.emdr.com/what-is-emdr/

I've met a lot of therapists in Boulder, Colorado, and though they may be highly intelligent they can also by quite wacky. The same is probably true of Palo Alto, a similarly liberal oasis. We need to learn the name of Ford's therapist.

FIDO said...

She could not recall a single case of a sexual assault victim misremembering a known attacker


AND YET, Project Innocence has exonerated something like 25% of those found guilty by just such 'surety'.

Do we believe a psychologist or that lying DNA?

Rick said...

I know that she says she wanted to remain anonymous. Did she say that she expected to remain anonymous?

To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones this means precisely...dick. Statements must be tested against actions before they can be considered compelling. In Ford's case she could have maintained anonymity by inserting a lawyer between herself and the committee but she chose not to do so even though her argument requires her understanding this meant anonymity would fail. She could also have revealed herself to Grassley who would have better reason to treat the information confidentially. She also revealed herself to WAPO. Why not insist on journalistic anonymity? Are we to believe she didn't understand she could make such a request or base her information on this condition? Absurd!

Instead she took the path guaranteed to out her.

Darrell said...

When she said she heard the two of them (Kavanaugh and Judge) "pinballing down the hall," I knew I was listening to a storyteller and wannabe novelist.

James K said...

“ This is ridiculous on its face. ”

No it isn’t. I got drunk a few times in high school and college, but am quite confident I didn’t black out, or do anything noteworthy that I subsequently could not remember. It’s a matter of degree. He’s simply asserting he never got so drunk as to be unaware of what he was doing. That is hardly ridiculous on its face.

Darrell said...

Freder just lost the little credibility he had.

Michael K said...

he never had memory lapses while drunk. This is ridiculous on its face.

"Doctor Freder" is going to lecture us on memory and drinking.

Are you as knowledgeable on this as you are on military strategy ?

Without global warming there would still be a mile thick ice sheet over Chicago.

Last time I looked it was not the thick.. Maybe an inch on bad days.

FIDO said...

I drink and I pass out. I remember every stupid and embarrassing thing I did while drunk...until I pass out.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Forget Blasey Ford, Kavanugh’s behavior iteself at that last hearing was enough to disqualify him. It was over the top nuttery from someone who is now going to making judgments from the highest court in the land. Partisanship on steroids has caused this.

Bruce Hayden said...

"The truth is global warming from CO2 is real. Simple physics."
"Nothing oversimplified there!"
"All scince can say "is real" is that atmospheric C02 is increasing due to fossil fuel use. That's it. Everything else is specualtion, correlation, and probabilities."

About the only people who give you the "Simple physics" line anymore are clueless about what is going on. The simple physics is that in a closed system, increasing CO2 increases the effectiveness of heating by solar radiation. The reality though is something called "feedback". The effects of just looking at the increase in CO2 is very small. Nowhere near catastrophic. So, to get to catastrophic, they needed to assume feedback. But that is where things all of a sudden get insanely complicated. Warming can affect the quantity of water in the atmosphere, which changes the albedo of the planet. And water is, of course, a much more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2. Also, plants thrive on more CO2, H2O, and heat, and more plant growth removes CO2 from the atmosphere, and, again changes the planet's albedo. The oceans are very large heat (or cold) sinks, and we still aren't that close to understanding the interactions there. Interesting though, whether we are in an El Niño or a La Niña (as well as the quantity of solar radiation) appears to correlate much better with global temperature than does CO2 levels. We don't know enough yet about these feedback factors, and how they work to solve the problem empirically, and even if we did, it will remain computationally infeasible, at least for the foreseeable future. So, what these climate scientists do is build models that make grossly simplifying assumptions about feedback, but since they are mostly developed by AGW/AGCC adherents, they almost invariably greatly overestimate global warming, based on CO2 levels, when their results are compared to reality (to the extent that reality can be accurately measured, which is another big problem here). So, no, it isn't just physics, but much more crude guesstimation.

Basil Duke said...

A memory I'll certainly never have to recover is that of the professional left's grotesque kabuki theatrics - the shrieking demons being dragged out of the confirmation hearing, the hand maidens coven, Spartacus Booker's preposterous peacocking, Harris' clown act, the Soros hags in Flake's face, the dead child's father's ambush of Kavanaugh, the soy boy Red Guarder's doxing of GOP senators' personal information, the progressive herd's clawing and ranting at the Supreme Court's front door, the mobs of agitators who mysteriously had no trouble whatsoever effecting entry into the bowels of the senate offices, etc. and et al. The left didn't just drop its mask in the last month; it stripped naked and showed its horns and cloven hoofs for all of us to see. That's a memory that will be fresh in my mind a month from now. And for the rest of my life. I know with absolute certainty what's waiting for my demographic if these lunatics ever regain full control of the levers of national government.

Roughcoat said...

PTSD has risen to the top of the fashionable/popular maladies list, displacing ADD, which has been in slow decline for many years. I note, however, that "being on the spectrum" is mounting a strong challenge to PTSD; only time will tell whether it will win out or be beaten back by the current first-place holder. Breast cancer has practically dropped out of sight although there is always the possibility that this hardy perennial will enjoy a resurgence in popularity. Being a victim of rape or mere sexual assault is also quite popular, but as these are not maladies, they belong in their own category.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Why put evidence out there that might lead to the truth? And not just anybody can erase their web presence, you need help from people in powerful places.

Exactly.

Blasey Ford's web presence was disappeared, and that is no accident.

Rick said...

Freder Frederson said...
As for the entries in the yearbook. Those terms have never been used to describe drinking games or farting (and the boofing reference doesn't even make sense in that context).


Freder is lying again. Uninvolved contemporaries confirm the drinking game name and the boofing reference. He's proving again and again the truth simply isn't relevant to the left.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"Forget Blasey Ford"

Behold: all you need to know about the hivemind and the corruption.
Never mind the baby talking liar who offers no corroborating evidence. She's no longer relevant.

Shorter Inga:
WE leftists smeared him with lies and he defended himself and he did so in a way we found offensive, and we hiveminders all agree, in lockstep. Shoulder to shoulder.


predictable.

The Godfather said...

We're never going to resolve this without a full FBI perjury investigation of Ford. Raid the offices of her lawyers and therapist, seize their notes and papers before they can be shredded. It can be done. Raid Ford's home. Raid the homes of her "beach friends". The FBI will get to the bottom of it.

walter said...

Blogger tim in vermont said...Do her parents remember her coming home from a party distraught?
--
Oh..but they don't like her politics..so nevermind that.
Now..you might wonder whether the first person she encountered after fleeing that hideous scene might stand out in the ole memory.

So still not a single video or audio clip of her voice pre-Kavanaugh SCOTUS nom era?
No student considered her teachings worthy of a recording?

Call upon those Ham-sters, rhardin. They'll tell you how to deal with your crisis. Gives 'em something to yammer about.

Michael K said...

the shrieking demons being dragged out of the confirmation hearing, the hand maidens coven,

Interesting WSJ piece today on funding.

I started following the money for the “resistance” when it was born, hours after Election Day 2016. I have organized my findings in a spreadsheet I have made public. At least 50 of the largest organizations that participated as “partners” in the Jan. 21, 2017, Women’s March had received grants from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations or similar funds in the “House of Soros,” as his philanthropic empire was once called internally. The number of Soros-backed partners has grown to at least 80. At least 20 of the largest groups that led the Saturday anti-Kavanaugh protests have been Open Society grantees.

Soros is funding the protests. Not just Soros but they are all shadowy deep state types. The money men.

Rick said...

Kavanugh’s behavior iteself at that last hearing was enough to disqualify him. It was over the top nuttery

Reasonable people believe challenging a bunch of nutters as he did is qualifying rather than disqualifying.

tim in vermont said...

The satellite data only goes back to the coldest decade of the last century. Same as most living memory. Thirties were very warm in the only country with comprehensive thermometer coverage.

It seems likely that CO2 has caused a mild warming, that is as much as we know. If you liberals want to create Bible stories to fill in the blanks and then call us infidels, well, it's been done before.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Matthew @ 11:04

Indeed.

The left have proved they are not democratic, they abhor due process, they are witch hunters who think they can divine intent out of 36 year old "memories" without anyone corroborating anything. and we should all ignore the timing.

Qwinn said...

"He defended himself and did so in a way we found offensive"

Which only required that he defended himself at all. Leftists have gotten so used to GOPe RINOs rolling over for their bullshit attacks that they think they're entitled to it.

Michael K said...

Partisanship on steroids has caused this.

I actually agree with Inga on this but not, of course, in the way she means this.

Democrats went crazier than usual and have wiped out their election hopes.

PackerBronco said...

If I'm still around 36 years from now, the only memory I will have of the past two weeks is a confused recollection of Garth Algar testifying that Judge Kavanaugh groped him on the set of Wayne's World 2.

tim in vermont said...

The Hillary supporter who organized Charlottesville became an alt right organizer right after writing a blog post admiring the work of 'agent provocateurs' at the same time as Hillary declared the resistance.

Which is more important? The facts as they happened, or the resistance?

Ralph L said...

his new wife's career as an "escort" in Washington

My memory is now hazy (and I was very young), but I think the Deans (and Martha Mitchell) had a high profile before Watergate--Photos in the WaPoo of them in their Old Town townhouse. Makes you wonder when he found out about her past.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Kavanaugh's classmates, in a letter to the judiciary committee, describe the "devil's triangle" as the name of a drinking game: Devil's Triangle.

We've gone from whether he assaulted a girl to the proper meaning of high school yearbook slang.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Perhaps next time Google, the FBI and the democrat party can create a crime.

rhhardin said...

One baby mouse transported to a distant field/woodland edge. A mouse cube from years ago has been found. Probably not the computer desk mouse, though.

The baby was upset about being transported, unlike what I expected. The babies ought to be pretty tame. Dashed into the woods.

tim in vermont said...

The French have a saying that goes like "He is an evil beast, when attacked, he fights."

Sigivald said...

Democracy Dies In Darkness, saith the Post.

While, for the most part, flipping the switch to "Off".

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Partisanship on steroids has caused this.

Then maybe you should cut back on the steroid use.

Just a thought.

tim in vermont said...

Own goal.

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/10/08/multiple-pollsters-now-warning-dems-they-may-fall-short-of-winning-the-house/

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Google THIS! After threatening the GOP, Google Lead Designer’s half-a*sed explanation sets record for BACKFIRE

But please, the hiveminders(leftist) have the best intentions.

readering said...

Predicting months of recovered memories about newest justice.

Drago said...

Rick: "Freder is lying again."

If you think Freder is lying here, and he is, you should have seen Freders incredible lying performance some weeks back regarding the putcome of the Bundy case.

Freder literally lied and reversed the truth on every salient fact of the case, trial and result.

Literally.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Good news: Bill the rapist and Hillary the slut-shaming apologist are going on tour.

Karen of Texas said...

Part of a throw down I had with my older (60), Bernie loving, Democrat supporting, union (electrician) indoctrinated brother:

"As for Christine Ford, full stop not believable and not credible *to me*. I realize and admit that I had a gut reaction to her personally that intensified as soon as she began to speak. Her appearance and voice mannerisms were a calculated effort used by accused and accusers since forever to evoke a certain response in a listening and viewing audience. Who is your quoted expert in the field of neuroscience, memory, and trauma that says she is believable based on what we know in those fields? I submit: "Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183265/"

Cuz my experts are better than yours...

walter said...

Garth had the moves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOJE8m_jG5U

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 337   Newer› Newest»