"He said, she said" and "I believe her" are both wrong.

[gulliver]

Both sides are oversimplifying the situation. Just because a witness is uncorroborated and lacks physical evidence, it doesn't mean you can't act on their information. Of course you can. If you are hiring a babysitter and your friend tells you that their kid saw the sitter drinking booze on the job, you can refuse to hire the sitter. Not only that, you should refuse.

But isn't the sitter entitled to the presumption of innocence? If the kid's story can't be corroborated, doesn't that mean you are forced to hire the sitter in order to be fair? One person's word against the other means you have no actionable information?

Of course not. That's ridiculous. It seems ridiculous, because it is ridiculous.

So the people who mouth "he said, she said" when talking about uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault are wrong at best. Yet we hear that all the time, and that hugely wrong idea is often taken for granted as right, even common sense. People who think they are being neutral will say (incorrectly), "it's a he said, she said situation." But it's not neutral. It's a gross misstatement about our prerogative to actually think about the full context of the case and judge accordingly.

On the other hand, no, of course you don't have to "believe" the accuser. You get to take into account a whole bunch of things, including the accuser's character and past history. You get to take into account motive. There's no presumption of truth on the part of the accuser, but you can choose to believe or disbelieve them to whatever degree you feel the available evidence supports. And you can then act on that choice.

So Ford, having no motive to lie and charging Kavanaugh with something it was highly unlikely for her to have forgotten, was easily believable enough to keep Kavanaugh off the court. The only reason that argument fails is because it isn't used. Instead, one side says it's "he said, she said" hands down, while the other says "we believe her (and not him) completely no matter what." Both sides think the other is unreasonable, and both sides are right about that. That's one way the action taken ends up being a simple party line vote. Thinking failed.

[MadDAsHell]

1. This is one the most rational posts I've ever seen on DU.

Well said. The only place I’ll disagree is I think many would say there’s absolutely a motive to lie. The Supreme Court is the ultimate prize. It is EVERYTHING. I don’t think you’re going to convince people there’s no motive to lie when the SC is on the line.

Hell I’d lie. Seriously. And our politicians do it for a living. Lying to support (or block) a SC nominee should be par for the course.

[Marengo]

6. Fabricating a sexual assault to keep someone off the bench is okay with you？

[greyl]

2. If they faced each other on Springer Show w named witnesses, the truth would be in higher relief.

Ain't that a shame.

[Snake Plissken]

3. Dr Ford had no motive to lie and Kavanaugh had ever motive to lie.

not to mention he acted guilty as fuck and just happens to be a pathological liar, who Trump sheltered from being interviewed by the FBI.

[moriah]

4. I admit I'm too biased to ever serve in an alcohol-facilitated sexual assault jury.

Two reasons. First I was the victim of one, and second when I reported knowing the difficulty of actually proving what he did in a court of law and said I understood if they couldn't prosecute and expect to win if he claimed consent explained the DNA, and if that was the case I'd rather just have them know it happened so if he did do it again with a similar pattern perhaps it could help her case.... they said they wanted to pursue him, but then refused the only way he'd consider talking about the fact he carried me from the couch I passed out on to his bed or my level of intoxication was a wire in a quiet public place. They wouldn't authorize it.

And of course, because he knew I was good with electronics, he wouldn't have talked on the phone about it. And so when we tried that, he lied his ass off. They also didn't even talk to the other person there that night who left the apartment with me still asleep on the couch and could testify to how shitfaced I was, and therefore why I'd have a hard time waking up to anything less than an unwanted penis.

I had no motive -- I thought he was a decent guy or I wouldn't have been around him vulnerable. I trusted him to protect me, not assault me. The fact the adrenaline surge from getting woken up to an unwanted penis let me terminate the attack, and now I have random adrenaline surges at night from random noises without sleeping with earphones with different audio input, and still scare people when they wake me up and I do my jumping bean imitation. Unfortunately within the time I was trying to recover there were other traumas, including being right that my drunken stepfather was about to commit aggravated assault with a firearm and having to tell him to "Put. That. Fucking. Gun. Down. Now!" with it aimed at me to disarm him, and yeah, some PTSD issues.

He was arrested six months later for physically assaulting another woman. No jail time, probation and AA meetings.

But we've said she had no motive as part of why we believe her. That she disclosed and named Kavanaugh long before anyone knew he would be added to Trump's original list of 20 judges is a reason we believe her. We've said even Kavanaugh's response to the allegations, whether or not you believed them, was far and away a huge reason to disqualify him by itself. However provoked, even by something as disturbing as a false allegation, that's when you show your cool the most. He acted like a man who could easily become violent with a few drinks in him if that's how he treats the Judiciary Committee sober.

We haven't just said "we believe her because she said so". You SHOULD listen to accusers with an open mind, setting aside what you know of the person accused because predators often have masks. When evidence is available, examine it. When evidence can be obtained, it should be whether the case involved an adult woman who knowingly drank too much or any other type of rape.

Unfortunately the things that have made these last few weeks so triggering for me are talking heads saying shit, like what KAC said about "responsibility". Sure, getting shitfaced isn't exactly smart, but it's not illegal, and I thought I had a safe couch vs walking home drunk off my ass, which I mistakenly perceived as more dangerous.

[gulliver]

5. This is a powerful post.

I'm struggling with my response. I've been sitting at the keyboard for an hour struggling with it.

I respect what you've written tremendously, not just in terms of what you say, but also in terms of how you say it. I think everyone would benefit from the perspective you have so lucidly and compellingly expressed here. My hat is off.