Jonathan Turley.
--------------------------------------------
The examination was administered by former FBI agent Jeremiah Hanafin in a Hilton hotel in Maryland. The polygraph was administered either the day or the day after Dr. Ford went to a family funeral for her grandmother.
It appears that Hanafin worked off a handwritten statement that Ford signed. That statement refers to “4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party. That is different from her account to the Committee that the party consisted of “me and 4 others.” An earlier report indicated that Ford told a therapist that there were four boys in the room when she was assaulted. She blamed the therapist as misunderstanding or poorly recorded her statement for the discrepancy.
None of the witnesses have supported Ford’s account and the most recently named witness, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford’s at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, denies knowing Kavanaugh or remembering being at the party with him.
The most notable aspect of the story however is the only two “relevant” questions asked by Hanafin “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”
Those questions would be effectively useless in an actual case. Good polygraphers ask specific, clear, insular questions. They do not use overarching language. He did not ask specific questions on whether she was assaulted by Kavanaugh — a rather curious omission.
It is not natural way to frame such an examination and the question is whether the examination was framed or limited by Ford’s counsel. The guidelines discourage such crafting or the dropping of details:
When the questions are agreed upon, and they exclude details or the wording is a bit unusual, be sure the missing details and a discussion of the development of the relevant questions are in the report. Details that were agreed upon, but were deleted from the question, must be in the report. Persons who were not present may criticize the relevant question wording because the report does not adequately describe the question development.
I have never met a polygrapher who would structure questions like these for use in a test. If this is truly the content of the examination, I would view it as largely useless in an actual case.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Monday, September 24, 2018
Traumatic Memories Are Not Necessarily Accurate Memories
Here is a link to a research paper by Laney and Loftus. It provides perspective on the Kavanaugh accusers.
Those who "believe" accusers are misinformed. There is a great amount of uncertainty concerning such memories.
Here are some excerpts.
---------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
Some therapists, as well as other commentators, have suggested that memories of horrific
trauma are buried in the subconscious by some special process, such as repression, and are
later reliably recovered. We find that the evidence provided to support this claim is flawed.
Where, then, might these memory reports come from? We discuss several research
paradigms that have shown that various manipulations can be used to implant false
memories—including false memories for traumatic events. These false memories can be
quite compelling for those who develop them and can include details that make them seem
credible to others. The fact that a memory report describes a traumatic event does not
ensure that the memory is authentic.
In one study, researchers interviewed 106 US undergraduate
subjects the morning after the 1986 explosion of the Challenger space shuttle to determine where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news (30). They then interviewed the 44 subjects that they could locate in the fall of 1988, nearly 3 years after the event. Although subjects were in
general extremely confident about the accuracy of their memories of hearing about the disaster and readily produced detailed memories of these events, their memories were in fact riddled with errors. These errors were not limited to the details of where they were and whom they were with, but included even the broadest possible facts. The errors suggested that, over several years, memories tend to deteriorate, although confidence in the memories may remain strong.
In other studies, experimenters have used leading questions to intentionally distort traumatic memories. Crombag and colleagues interviewed Dutch subjects some 10 months after a horrible plane crash that had killed 43 people and had been major national news (31). One of the interview questions was misleading: “Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?” There was in fact no such film (the plane hit an apartment building and camera crews did
not arrive until much later). Nonetheless, more than 60% of subjects claimed to have seen the film and then went on to answer additional questions about the nonexistent video footage.
In another study, researchers had Russian subjects complete a questionnaire in the spring of 2002 about 2 separate terrorist attacks (the first involved 2 Moscow apartment buildings in
1999, and the second was the 2001 World Trade Center catastrophe) (32). About 6 months later, they interviewed subjects about 1 of the 2 terrorist events and included a misleading question: “A half-year ago, when you were taking part in our study, you mentioned a wounded animal. Do you remember it?” (this was not actually the case for any of the subjects in the study). Although all the subjects responding to the World Trade Center questionnaire denied that they had seen a wounded animal, 5 subjects (12.5%) interviewed about the Moscow bombings accepted the false suggestion and provided sensory details about various injured animals.
Those who "believe" accusers are misinformed. There is a great amount of uncertainty concerning such memories.
Here are some excerpts.
---------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
Some therapists, as well as other commentators, have suggested that memories of horrific
trauma are buried in the subconscious by some special process, such as repression, and are
later reliably recovered. We find that the evidence provided to support this claim is flawed.
Where, then, might these memory reports come from? We discuss several research
paradigms that have shown that various manipulations can be used to implant false
memories—including false memories for traumatic events. These false memories can be
quite compelling for those who develop them and can include details that make them seem
credible to others. The fact that a memory report describes a traumatic event does not
ensure that the memory is authentic.
EXCERPTS
In one study, researchers interviewed 106 US undergraduate
subjects the morning after the 1986 explosion of the Challenger space shuttle to determine where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news (30). They then interviewed the 44 subjects that they could locate in the fall of 1988, nearly 3 years after the event. Although subjects were in
general extremely confident about the accuracy of their memories of hearing about the disaster and readily produced detailed memories of these events, their memories were in fact riddled with errors. These errors were not limited to the details of where they were and whom they were with, but included even the broadest possible facts. The errors suggested that, over several years, memories tend to deteriorate, although confidence in the memories may remain strong.
In other studies, experimenters have used leading questions to intentionally distort traumatic memories. Crombag and colleagues interviewed Dutch subjects some 10 months after a horrible plane crash that had killed 43 people and had been major national news (31). One of the interview questions was misleading: “Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?” There was in fact no such film (the plane hit an apartment building and camera crews did
not arrive until much later). Nonetheless, more than 60% of subjects claimed to have seen the film and then went on to answer additional questions about the nonexistent video footage.
In another study, researchers had Russian subjects complete a questionnaire in the spring of 2002 about 2 separate terrorist attacks (the first involved 2 Moscow apartment buildings in
1999, and the second was the 2001 World Trade Center catastrophe) (32). About 6 months later, they interviewed subjects about 1 of the 2 terrorist events and included a misleading question: “A half-year ago, when you were taking part in our study, you mentioned a wounded animal. Do you remember it?” (this was not actually the case for any of the subjects in the study). Although all the subjects responding to the World Trade Center questionnaire denied that they had seen a wounded animal, 5 subjects (12.5%) interviewed about the Moscow bombings accepted the false suggestion and provided sensory details about various injured animals.
Taken together, these studies show that vivid memories—even memories for traumatic events and memories that people are confident about—can still become distorted over time or at the suggestion of others. As such, the fact that a memory describes a traumatic event does not make that memory reliable. Later, we will expand on this point by showing that people can develop memories for traumas that never occurred at all.
It’s the Salem Witch Trials All Over Again
From Wikipedia.
Of course, nothing like this would happen in modern day America.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused, nineteen of whom were found guilty and executed by hanging (fourteen women and five men). One other man was pressed to death for refusing to plead, and at least five people died in jail. It was the deadliest witch hunt in the history of the United States.
Twelve other women had previously been executed in Massachusetts and Connecticut during the 17th century. Despite being generally known as the SalemWitch Trials, the preliminary hearings in 1692 were conducted in several towns: Salem Village (now Danvers), Salem Town, Ipswich, and Andover. The most infamous trials were conducted by the Court of Oyer and Terminer in 1692 in Salem Town.
The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process.[1] It was not unique, but a Colonial American example of the much broader phenomenon of witch trials in the early modern period, which took place also in Europe. Many historians consider the lasting effects of the trials to have been highly influential in subsequent United States history. According to historian George Lincoln Burr, "the Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered."[2]
Of course, nothing like this would happen in modern day America.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused, nineteen of whom were found guilty and executed by hanging (fourteen women and five men). One other man was pressed to death for refusing to plead, and at least five people died in jail. It was the deadliest witch hunt in the history of the United States.
Twelve other women had previously been executed in Massachusetts and Connecticut during the 17th century. Despite being generally known as the SalemWitch Trials, the preliminary hearings in 1692 were conducted in several towns: Salem Village (now Danvers), Salem Town, Ipswich, and Andover. The most infamous trials were conducted by the Court of Oyer and Terminer in 1692 in Salem Town.
The episode is one of Colonial America's most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process.[1] It was not unique, but a Colonial American example of the much broader phenomenon of witch trials in the early modern period, which took place also in Europe. Many historians consider the lasting effects of the trials to have been highly influential in subsequent United States history. According to historian George Lincoln Burr, "the Salem witchcraft was the rock on which the theocracy shattered."[2]
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Perspective on Memory
Here is a link to a TED talk by Elizabeth Loftus.
Elizabeth F. Loftus (born Elizabeth Fishman, October 16, 1944)[2][3][4] is an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory. She has conducted extensive research on the malleability of human memory. Loftus is best known for her ground-breaking work on the misinformation effect and eyewitness memory,[5] and the creation and nature of false memories,[6] including recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.[7] As well as her prolific work inside the laboratory, Loftus has been heavily involved in applying her research to legal settings; she has consulted or provided expert witness testimony for hundreds of cases.[7][8] Loftus has been recognized throughout the world for her work, receiving numerous awards and honorary degrees. In 2002, Loftus was ranked 58th in the Review of General Psychology's list of the 100 most influential psychological researchers of the 20th century, and was the highest ranked woman on the list.[9]
Elizabeth F. Loftus (born Elizabeth Fishman, October 16, 1944)[2][3][4] is an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory. She has conducted extensive research on the malleability of human memory. Loftus is best known for her ground-breaking work on the misinformation effect and eyewitness memory,[5] and the creation and nature of false memories,[6] including recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.[7] As well as her prolific work inside the laboratory, Loftus has been heavily involved in applying her research to legal settings; she has consulted or provided expert witness testimony for hundreds of cases.[7][8] Loftus has been recognized throughout the world for her work, receiving numerous awards and honorary degrees. In 2002, Loftus was ranked 58th in the Review of General Psychology's list of the 100 most influential psychological researchers of the 20th century, and was the highest ranked woman on the list.[9]
After viewing the video, you will be better informed about what weight to place on Christine Ford's allegations concerning Brett Kavanaugh.
Friday, September 21, 2018
The Decision To Testify Rests With Ford But Not The Conditions For Her Testimony
From Jonathan Turley.
One could define "disingenuous" by what is going on with the Kavanaugh confirmation.
-------------------------------------------
Congress is accustomed to conditional spending and conditional adjournments. It is not as accustomed to conditional witnesses. Nevertheless, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has made her testimony on allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh conditional on the FBI launching an investigation into whether he tried to rape her in high school.
The new condition conflicts with assurances from Ford’s counsel that she was prepared to state her allegations under oath before the committee if it delayed its scheduled vote on Kavanaugh.
Ford’s demand is, to put it simply, out of line, both with her prior statements and with congressional precedent. It is not that the FBI has not investigated such allegations; it did so with Clarence Thomas. However, there is no precedent for a quid pro quo demand for testimony by a witness. Individuals can certainly refuse to testify, yet conditioning testimony on a criminal investigation by a federal agency is well beyond the province of any witness. There may indeed be a basis for reopening the FBI background investigation, but the priority is to get both the testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh under oath.
This demand is the latest twist in an increasingly confusing record. Ford originally sent a letter to Congress to ask that her allegations be considered by the committee before voting on Kavanaugh. She then demanded that she be left in anonymity — denying Kavanaugh an opportunity to know who had accused him. After her letter was leaked to the media, Ford came forward publicly and said she would testify before the committee. Now she is saying she will not testify unless her demand for an FBI investigation is met.
The letter from Ford’s counsel states, “While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident.”
She added that she has no intention of appearing for an “interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is ‘mistaken’and ‘mixed up.’ ” However, it could hardly be a surprise to Ford that Republican senators would be skeptical or hostile to her claim.
Indeed, we do not know a great deal about Ford’s allegations because we have not heard from Ford. A Senate confirmation vote was correctly delayed to do precisely that. Ford has every right to expect to be heard on these very serious allegations. She does not have the right to set conditions before testifying under oath.
Where Ford is correct is that she should not be required to sit next to Kavanaugh to give such testimony, if that was indeed the plan. Such an arrangement would be a clearly inappropriate condition by the committee. Ford says Kavanaugh tried to rape her and that she has dealt with that trauma for years; it would be outrageous to require her to sit next to the man who she alleges sexually assaulted her.
While Democratic senators such as Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) have already declared they believe Ford, there has been no testimony from either party. Moreover, while Democrats have insisted Ford has a “right to be believed,” there are basic principles of due process that establish a right to be heard, not a right to be believed. Kavanaugh categorically denies these allegations; he has no less and no more right to be believed. This, apparently, was the position of ranking committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said Ford had been “profoundly impacted” by her experience and “I can’t say everything is truthful, I don’t know.”
If Ford refuses to testify, she could resolve this matter for members on the fence in favor of Kavanaugh. No question, walking into that committee room would be a terrible burden for anyone; it takes courage to come forward in any case of sexual assault, and doubly so when you must do so before tens of millions of people. However, Ford asked Congress to take her allegations seriously and it is doing so. Either she puts her allegations on the record under oath or those allegations will remain unproven and unsupported.
I have been critical of the degree of documents withheld from the Senate as well as the unilateral labeling of other documents as “Committee confidential.” I still believe further disclosure should be made of Kavanaugh’s record before a final vote. Moreover, Democrats are correct about the needless expedited pace of this confirmation. However, if Ford does not testify, it would magnify criticism of Democrats holding this letter since July, as well as suspicions over the timing of leaking it just before the committee vote. Democrats have made no secret of their desire to force a vote to be held after the midterm elections in November. An FBI investigation would conveniently accomplish that.
It would be useful to interview any witnesses, and that may be where this should lead. However, Democrats themselves did not move with particular dispatch since July in locating possible witnesses. As for Ford, her counsel stated publicly that it is simply not her job (or her counsel’s) to determine if there are corroborating witnesses. So, while arranging a polygraph examination, her counsel did not reportedly seek out witnesses to support the claims of her client, including high school friends.
In reality, Kavanaugh was more likely to face an “interrogation” than Ford. Republican senators were clearly leery of being seen as roughing up a sexual assault victim, and potentially losing female voters in the midterms. There was no such reluctance with Kavanaugh, who was always looking at an aggressive, unrelenting examination by Democrats.
The key to holding testimony is to establish under oath exactly what these two individuals remember; it might not be much beyond what is already known. Feinstein stated this week that she could not recall whether she contacted Ford six weeks ago. Yet, these witnesses would be expected to recall details from 36 years ago. Once their testimony is locked in, the Senate — and the public — will have a better idea of whether further investigation is warranted.
The only condition for either witness that will be recognized by the Senate is that their testimony will be truthful. If Ford will not testify, the Senate committee would have grounds to move toward to a final vote. That may avoid the “interrogation,” only to clear the path to confirmation.
One could define "disingenuous" by what is going on with the Kavanaugh confirmation.
-------------------------------------------
Congress is accustomed to conditional spending and conditional adjournments. It is not as accustomed to conditional witnesses. Nevertheless, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has made her testimony on allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh conditional on the FBI launching an investigation into whether he tried to rape her in high school.
The new condition conflicts with assurances from Ford’s counsel that she was prepared to state her allegations under oath before the committee if it delayed its scheduled vote on Kavanaugh.
Ford’s demand is, to put it simply, out of line, both with her prior statements and with congressional precedent. It is not that the FBI has not investigated such allegations; it did so with Clarence Thomas. However, there is no precedent for a quid pro quo demand for testimony by a witness. Individuals can certainly refuse to testify, yet conditioning testimony on a criminal investigation by a federal agency is well beyond the province of any witness. There may indeed be a basis for reopening the FBI background investigation, but the priority is to get both the testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh under oath.
This demand is the latest twist in an increasingly confusing record. Ford originally sent a letter to Congress to ask that her allegations be considered by the committee before voting on Kavanaugh. She then demanded that she be left in anonymity — denying Kavanaugh an opportunity to know who had accused him. After her letter was leaked to the media, Ford came forward publicly and said she would testify before the committee. Now she is saying she will not testify unless her demand for an FBI investigation is met.
The letter from Ford’s counsel states, “While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident.”
She added that she has no intention of appearing for an “interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is ‘mistaken’and ‘mixed up.’ ” However, it could hardly be a surprise to Ford that Republican senators would be skeptical or hostile to her claim.
Indeed, we do not know a great deal about Ford’s allegations because we have not heard from Ford. A Senate confirmation vote was correctly delayed to do precisely that. Ford has every right to expect to be heard on these very serious allegations. She does not have the right to set conditions before testifying under oath.
Where Ford is correct is that she should not be required to sit next to Kavanaugh to give such testimony, if that was indeed the plan. Such an arrangement would be a clearly inappropriate condition by the committee. Ford says Kavanaugh tried to rape her and that she has dealt with that trauma for years; it would be outrageous to require her to sit next to the man who she alleges sexually assaulted her.
While Democratic senators such as Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) have already declared they believe Ford, there has been no testimony from either party. Moreover, while Democrats have insisted Ford has a “right to be believed,” there are basic principles of due process that establish a right to be heard, not a right to be believed. Kavanaugh categorically denies these allegations; he has no less and no more right to be believed. This, apparently, was the position of ranking committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said Ford had been “profoundly impacted” by her experience and “I can’t say everything is truthful, I don’t know.”
If Ford refuses to testify, she could resolve this matter for members on the fence in favor of Kavanaugh. No question, walking into that committee room would be a terrible burden for anyone; it takes courage to come forward in any case of sexual assault, and doubly so when you must do so before tens of millions of people. However, Ford asked Congress to take her allegations seriously and it is doing so. Either she puts her allegations on the record under oath or those allegations will remain unproven and unsupported.
I have been critical of the degree of documents withheld from the Senate as well as the unilateral labeling of other documents as “Committee confidential.” I still believe further disclosure should be made of Kavanaugh’s record before a final vote. Moreover, Democrats are correct about the needless expedited pace of this confirmation. However, if Ford does not testify, it would magnify criticism of Democrats holding this letter since July, as well as suspicions over the timing of leaking it just before the committee vote. Democrats have made no secret of their desire to force a vote to be held after the midterm elections in November. An FBI investigation would conveniently accomplish that.
It would be useful to interview any witnesses, and that may be where this should lead. However, Democrats themselves did not move with particular dispatch since July in locating possible witnesses. As for Ford, her counsel stated publicly that it is simply not her job (or her counsel’s) to determine if there are corroborating witnesses. So, while arranging a polygraph examination, her counsel did not reportedly seek out witnesses to support the claims of her client, including high school friends.
In reality, Kavanaugh was more likely to face an “interrogation” than Ford. Republican senators were clearly leery of being seen as roughing up a sexual assault victim, and potentially losing female voters in the midterms. There was no such reluctance with Kavanaugh, who was always looking at an aggressive, unrelenting examination by Democrats.
The key to holding testimony is to establish under oath exactly what these two individuals remember; it might not be much beyond what is already known. Feinstein stated this week that she could not recall whether she contacted Ford six weeks ago. Yet, these witnesses would be expected to recall details from 36 years ago. Once their testimony is locked in, the Senate — and the public — will have a better idea of whether further investigation is warranted.
The only condition for either witness that will be recognized by the Senate is that their testimony will be truthful. If Ford will not testify, the Senate committee would have grounds to move toward to a final vote. That may avoid the “interrogation,” only to clear the path to confirmation.
The Probability Plot Thickens
From Jonathan Turley.
Link
Check out the picture on the link.
Being sure of something does not guarantee its truth.
The article.
--------------------------------------------
The unfolding drama over the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford just got even more bizarre as Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Center (EPPC) released the picture of a remarkably similar looking teenager who could have been the culprit in the alleged attempted rape. While Ford insists that she could not be mistaken, the release of the photo adds a new element to the hearing . . . and could raise some interesting legal issues after suggesting Chris Garrett (right) could be responsible for the attack.
On Thursday afternoon, Whelan released the pictures and suggested that the “Maryland suburban home” might have been Garrett’s, which is also “not too far from the Columbia Country Club.” This advanced the best possible approach for the GOP in the upcoming hearing: that Ford could be telling the truth about the attack but could be mistaken about the attacker.
As shown below, Whelan is clearly implicating Garrett as a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s.
That of course could be viewed by Garrett as the basis for a defamation or false light tort. This is an allegation of criminal conduct. Criminal conduct has long been recognized as a per se category of slander under common law torts as well as such categories as moral turpitude and unchastity or impugning professional reputation.
Garrett is not a public figure so he does not fall under the more generous standard (for accusers) of the actual malice test, requiring a showing of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Of course Whelan can argue that he is merely showing how easy it is to confuse things and people 36 years ago. Yet, the import seems more incriminating in the posts below.
Yet, Whelan added “To be clear, I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs, and I therefore do not state, imply or insinuate that Garrett or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges. Further, if Ford is now mistakenly remembering Garrett to be Kavanaugh, I offer no view whether that mistaken remembrance dates from the gathering or developed at some point in the intervening years.”
That may or may not be enough for Garrett who now finds himself in the middle of a maelstrom as a suspected attempted rapist.
Dr. Ford may well have been the victim of a severe sexual assault by someone 36 years ago. Her allegations are so vague as to such basic matters as when and where that it is impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to *prove* his innocence.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
But there are compelling reasons to believe his categorical denial. Let’s look at one set of reasons.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
According to Ford’s letter, the assault occurred “in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.” Her WaPo account adds that the house was “not far from” the Columbia Country Club.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
The “four others” that she and her lawyer have identified are Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and a female classmate of Ford’s. None of the four lived in the vicinity of the Columbia Country Club.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Kavanaugh’s home was 3.6 miles away; Smyth’s 4.3 miles; Judge’s 10 miles; and the female classmate’s 7 miles.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Here is a map of the homes in relation to Columbia Country Club. pic.twitter.com/0pXSbSxb49
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Here is a house that is barely a half-mile from the Columbia Country Club. Street address: 3714 Thornapple Street, Chevy Chase. pic.twitter.com/RgRdv0gzyQ
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
The floor plan corresponds closely to Ford’s description of the house where the gathering took place. Here’s the “short stair well” (part of a U-shaped staircase with landing) running up from the foyer next to the living room. pic.twitter.com/jEceJiiHNk
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Who lived in this house? Chris Garrett, a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s. pic.twitter.com/lJYf7zCLQj
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Folks who knew both Kavanaugh and Garrett in high school have commented on how much they resembled each other in appearance. Here are Kavanaugh and Garrett in their senior yearbook photos. pic.twitter.com/9VmLL3zNq9
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Link
Check out the picture on the link.
Being sure of something does not guarantee its truth.
The article.
--------------------------------------------
The unfolding drama over the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford just got even more bizarre as Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Center (EPPC) released the picture of a remarkably similar looking teenager who could have been the culprit in the alleged attempted rape. While Ford insists that she could not be mistaken, the release of the photo adds a new element to the hearing . . . and could raise some interesting legal issues after suggesting Chris Garrett (right) could be responsible for the attack.
On Thursday afternoon, Whelan released the pictures and suggested that the “Maryland suburban home” might have been Garrett’s, which is also “not too far from the Columbia Country Club.” This advanced the best possible approach for the GOP in the upcoming hearing: that Ford could be telling the truth about the attack but could be mistaken about the attacker.
As shown below, Whelan is clearly implicating Garrett as a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s.
That of course could be viewed by Garrett as the basis for a defamation or false light tort. This is an allegation of criminal conduct. Criminal conduct has long been recognized as a per se category of slander under common law torts as well as such categories as moral turpitude and unchastity or impugning professional reputation.
Garrett is not a public figure so he does not fall under the more generous standard (for accusers) of the actual malice test, requiring a showing of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Of course Whelan can argue that he is merely showing how easy it is to confuse things and people 36 years ago. Yet, the import seems more incriminating in the posts below.
Yet, Whelan added “To be clear, I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs, and I therefore do not state, imply or insinuate that Garrett or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges. Further, if Ford is now mistakenly remembering Garrett to be Kavanaugh, I offer no view whether that mistaken remembrance dates from the gathering or developed at some point in the intervening years.”
That may or may not be enough for Garrett who now finds himself in the middle of a maelstrom as a suspected attempted rapist.
Dr. Ford may well have been the victim of a severe sexual assault by someone 36 years ago. Her allegations are so vague as to such basic matters as when and where that it is impossible for Judge Kavanaugh to *prove* his innocence.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
But there are compelling reasons to believe his categorical denial. Let’s look at one set of reasons.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
According to Ford’s letter, the assault occurred “in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.” Her WaPo account adds that the house was “not far from” the Columbia Country Club.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
The “four others” that she and her lawyer have identified are Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and a female classmate of Ford’s. None of the four lived in the vicinity of the Columbia Country Club.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Kavanaugh’s home was 3.6 miles away; Smyth’s 4.3 miles; Judge’s 10 miles; and the female classmate’s 7 miles.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Here is a map of the homes in relation to Columbia Country Club. pic.twitter.com/0pXSbSxb49
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Here is a house that is barely a half-mile from the Columbia Country Club. Street address: 3714 Thornapple Street, Chevy Chase. pic.twitter.com/RgRdv0gzyQ
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
The floor plan corresponds closely to Ford’s description of the house where the gathering took place. Here’s the “short stair well” (part of a U-shaped staircase with landing) running up from the foyer next to the living room. pic.twitter.com/jEceJiiHNk
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Who lived in this house? Chris Garrett, a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s. pic.twitter.com/lJYf7zCLQj
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
Folks who knew both Kavanaugh and Garrett in high school have commented on how much they resembled each other in appearance. Here are Kavanaugh and Garrett in their senior yearbook photos. pic.twitter.com/9VmLL3zNq9
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) September 20, 2018
A Probability Lesson
For those who are 100% sure that Christine Ford's statements are completely accurate.
Link
Those who are 100% sure of most anything either don't understand what it means or are delusional.
Link
Those who are 100% sure of most anything either don't understand what it means or are delusional.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Aerobatics with an electric model airplane with reversible propeller and non-standard control surfaces
Talk about sky dancing - take a look at this.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Obama's lies and the lies of the media
John Lott in the Washington Times.
JR is on target.
-----------------------------------------------------
Former President Obama has no shame, but don’t count on the mainstream media to tell you this. They are in on the deception. His talk at the University of Illinois on Friday contained all of the divisive rhetoric that he and the mainstream press accuse President Trump of engaging in.
The issue isn’t Mr. Obama breaking with the tradition of former presidents and becoming so political criticizing his predecessor. The problem is his lies and the lies of the media.
Possibly Mr. Obama claims that he doesn’t agree with the strategy: “we have to fight fire with fire. We have to do the same things to the Republicans that they do to us, adopt their tactics. Say whatever works, make up stuff about the other side.” But might it be that lying about the Republicans is Mr. Obama’s tactic?
Take Mr. Obama’s most vicious lie: “We’re supposed to stand up to discrimination, and we’re sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers. How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad?”
Mr. Obama was referring to Mr. Trump’s “there is blame on both sides” comment after the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. They leave out that Mr. Trump made it very clear that his comment did not pertain to “neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.” Before making the both sides comment, Mr. Trump forcefully said: “And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
But where were the fact-checkers?
Ironically, Mr. Obama attacked Mr. Trump in his speech for dividing Americans at the same time Mr. Obama is claiming that Mr. Trump can criticize Nazi sympathizers. Has Mr. Trump called Democrats anything similar? In Mr. Obama’s Nelson Mandela Lecture in July, Mr. Obama at least implicitly went after Mr. Trump with talk of “rabid nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial, or religious superiority” and “right-wing billionaires.”
Then there are Mr. Obama’s usual attacks of Republican policies, which he thinks are all about “cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans.” But even the liberal Tax Policy Center pointed out, “The top 1 percent and 0.1 percent of taxpayers will see their share of income taxes rise in 2018.” The mainstream media won’t even critically examine that or other Mr. Obama’s oft-repeated claims, which always carry the implication that Republicans don’t care enough about the poor or minorities.
On the economy, Mr. Obama took credit for the current growth: “so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started. I mean, I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on …”
People forget that stocks were completely flat for two years, from the end of December 2014 right up until the presidential election in 2016. Right after the election, the stock market around the world and especially in the United States started soaring. At the close of business on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 25,916, up 42 percent from the day before the 2016 election.
Long gone is the pessimistic outlook of the Obama administration. In 2013, four years after the recession had ended, Mr. Obama’s Department of Labor explained: the recession “left lasting scars on the economy … [it meant slower growth was] the new normal” for the American economy. In April 2014, Larry Summers, who had served as Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, warned that economic growth was going to be slow “for a substantial period of time going forward.” In August 2016, seven years after the recession ended, The New York Times predicted: “The underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White House.” The Times explained, “Something fundamental is broken in the global growth machine.”
Yet, after other recessions the fastest growth has consistently taken place right after the recession ends.
In August 2016, with the unemployment rate at 4.9 percent, many such as Paul Krugman were warning that the unemployment rate was already “near full employment” and that further reductions would be difficult to obtain. However, the current unemployment is better than 20 percent lower, near historic lows.
It is surreal for Mr. Obama to attack Mr. Trump for wanting to “use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents” when Mr. Obama’s IRS systematically damaged his political opponents, and his FBI and Department of Justice spied on Mr. Trump’s political campaign.
For years now the press has made false claims about Mr. Trump in the most vicious terms. But have Mr. Obama make the absurdly false claim that Mr. Trump is a Nazi sympathizer and you will wait in vain for any castigation by the press.
JR is on target.
-----------------------------------------------------
Former President Obama has no shame, but don’t count on the mainstream media to tell you this. They are in on the deception. His talk at the University of Illinois on Friday contained all of the divisive rhetoric that he and the mainstream press accuse President Trump of engaging in.
The issue isn’t Mr. Obama breaking with the tradition of former presidents and becoming so political criticizing his predecessor. The problem is his lies and the lies of the media.
Possibly Mr. Obama claims that he doesn’t agree with the strategy: “we have to fight fire with fire. We have to do the same things to the Republicans that they do to us, adopt their tactics. Say whatever works, make up stuff about the other side.” But might it be that lying about the Republicans is Mr. Obama’s tactic?
Take Mr. Obama’s most vicious lie: “We’re supposed to stand up to discrimination, and we’re sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers. How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad?”
Mr. Obama was referring to Mr. Trump’s “there is blame on both sides” comment after the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. They leave out that Mr. Trump made it very clear that his comment did not pertain to “neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.” Before making the both sides comment, Mr. Trump forcefully said: “And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
But where were the fact-checkers?
Ironically, Mr. Obama attacked Mr. Trump in his speech for dividing Americans at the same time Mr. Obama is claiming that Mr. Trump can criticize Nazi sympathizers. Has Mr. Trump called Democrats anything similar? In Mr. Obama’s Nelson Mandela Lecture in July, Mr. Obama at least implicitly went after Mr. Trump with talk of “rabid nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial, or religious superiority” and “right-wing billionaires.”
Then there are Mr. Obama’s usual attacks of Republican policies, which he thinks are all about “cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans.” But even the liberal Tax Policy Center pointed out, “The top 1 percent and 0.1 percent of taxpayers will see their share of income taxes rise in 2018.” The mainstream media won’t even critically examine that or other Mr. Obama’s oft-repeated claims, which always carry the implication that Republicans don’t care enough about the poor or minorities.
On the economy, Mr. Obama took credit for the current growth: “so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started. I mean, I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on …”
People forget that stocks were completely flat for two years, from the end of December 2014 right up until the presidential election in 2016. Right after the election, the stock market around the world and especially in the United States started soaring. At the close of business on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 25,916, up 42 percent from the day before the 2016 election.
Long gone is the pessimistic outlook of the Obama administration. In 2013, four years after the recession had ended, Mr. Obama’s Department of Labor explained: the recession “left lasting scars on the economy … [it meant slower growth was] the new normal” for the American economy. In April 2014, Larry Summers, who had served as Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, warned that economic growth was going to be slow “for a substantial period of time going forward.” In August 2016, seven years after the recession ended, The New York Times predicted: “The underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White House.” The Times explained, “Something fundamental is broken in the global growth machine.”
Yet, after other recessions the fastest growth has consistently taken place right after the recession ends.
In August 2016, with the unemployment rate at 4.9 percent, many such as Paul Krugman were warning that the unemployment rate was already “near full employment” and that further reductions would be difficult to obtain. However, the current unemployment is better than 20 percent lower, near historic lows.
It is surreal for Mr. Obama to attack Mr. Trump for wanting to “use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents” when Mr. Obama’s IRS systematically damaged his political opponents, and his FBI and Department of Justice spied on Mr. Trump’s political campaign.
For years now the press has made false claims about Mr. Trump in the most vicious terms. But have Mr. Obama make the absurdly false claim that Mr. Trump is a Nazi sympathizer and you will wait in vain for any castigation by the press.
There is a benefit from PSA screening
From www.practiceupdate.com.
-------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is beneficial in reducing prostate cancer mortality, and to determine optimal screening intervals and age groups to be screened.
METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study of 400,887 men under age 80, with no history of prostate cancer, who had PSA testing at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in the 5 calendar years 1998-2002, and were followed up for 12-16 years. Subjects were stratified into 6 groups based on the screening interval, and into 7 groups based on age. Prostate cancer mortality rates for each of the 42 subgroups were calculated and compared.
RESULTS
The data show that yearly PSA screening is beneficial, reducing prostate cancer deaths by 64% for men aged 55-75 years (95% confidence interval 50-78%, P <.001), and all-cause mortality by 24% (95% confidence interval 15%-34%, P <.001). This is the first study to evaluate various screening intervals and age groups, showing that yearly screening is the interval of choice. No benefit was found for screening at any interval for men under age 55.
CONCLUSION
Yearly PSA screening is highly effective in reducing both prostate cancer mortality and all-cause mortality in men with prostate cancer, and when combined with active surveillance to prevent overtreatment, lends support for PSA screening for men in good health aged 55-75.
-------------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is beneficial in reducing prostate cancer mortality, and to determine optimal screening intervals and age groups to be screened.
METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study of 400,887 men under age 80, with no history of prostate cancer, who had PSA testing at Kaiser Permanente Northern California in the 5 calendar years 1998-2002, and were followed up for 12-16 years. Subjects were stratified into 6 groups based on the screening interval, and into 7 groups based on age. Prostate cancer mortality rates for each of the 42 subgroups were calculated and compared.
RESULTS
The data show that yearly PSA screening is beneficial, reducing prostate cancer deaths by 64% for men aged 55-75 years (95% confidence interval 50-78%, P <.001), and all-cause mortality by 24% (95% confidence interval 15%-34%, P <.001). This is the first study to evaluate various screening intervals and age groups, showing that yearly screening is the interval of choice. No benefit was found for screening at any interval for men under age 55.
CONCLUSION
Yearly PSA screening is highly effective in reducing both prostate cancer mortality and all-cause mortality in men with prostate cancer, and when combined with active surveillance to prevent overtreatment, lends support for PSA screening for men in good health aged 55-75.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)