#6 Beyond belief Kavanaugh party boys have blank memories

[wpseo_breadcrumb]

By George H Butcher III

The collective memory failures of all the witnesses on July 1, 1982, are not believable – the seven boys at the party

The supposedly blank memories of all of the other witnesses who were present on July 1, 1982, are not credible. They reflect the existence of a conspiracy led by Justice Kavanaugh, as explained in Blog #5A. The purpose of the conspiracy is to obscure the fact that Dr. Ford attended the July 1, 1982 house-party, where she alleges that Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

It is certain that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982, as explained in Blog #2. However, neither the commonsense analysis nor the statistical analysis, which both show that Dr. Ford was there, was part of the discussion during the confirmation proceedings.

The confirmation proceedings ended on October 6, 2018. Yet, those commonsense and statistical analyses have not been part of either the political or media discussions of Dr. Ford’s accusation against Justice Kavanaugh, prior to the publication of Blog #2 in July 2020.

During the confirmation proceedings, the Kavanaugh defense theory was articulated by Senator Collins. The senator openly argued that Dr. Ford just imagined being at the event she described and just imagined being sexually assaulted by Justice Kavanaugh.

The critical evidence which Senator Collins relied on to support the defense theory was that:

The other witnesses whom Dr. Ford named as being at the event each stated they have no memory of it.
The other witnesses who were at the July 1, 1982 house-party, based on Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry, did not come forward to say they remember it.

How did we get to this point?

This is Blog #6 in my series of blog posts. Blog #1 through Blog #4 explained the three independent proofs of Justice Kavanaugh’s guilt of sexually assaulting Dr. Ford. Blog #3 and Blog #4 described his admissions of guilt in 2018 and 1982, respectively.

Blog #5A described how the seven or eight other witnesses who were present at the July 1, 1982, house-party all made non-recollection claims. In other words, the witnesses who were there, based on Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar and Dr. Ford’s memory, all claimed to remember nothing.

As noted above, Blog #5A further explained that the collective non-recollection claims reflect the existence of a conspiracy among most or all of the other witnesses, led by Justice Kavanaugh. Blog #5B specifically evaluated Ms. Keyser’s non-recollection claim and judged it to be dubious.

This Blog #6 specifically evaluates the collective non-recollection claims of the seven boys who were at the July 1, 1982 house-party. First, we’ll look at the claims of the five male fact-witnesses that they have no relevant memories of whether the event described by Dr. Ford occurred or not. Then we’ll examine the similar claims of Dr. Ford’s two alleged assailants – Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge.

Senator Collins expanded the scope of the alternative perspective and applied it without justification

As explained in Blog #5A, Senator Collins applied and expanded upon the alternative perspective of non-recollection claims. First she applied the perspective to the non-recollection claims of the four witnesses that Dr. Ford identified by name. She argued that their non-recollection claims were evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford did not occur.

Second, Senator Collins expanded the concept to the failures of witnesses to take affirmative actions in support of Dr. Ford. The senator argued that failures to come forward of other witnesses constitute evidence that the event described by Dr. Ford didn’t happen.

But Senator Collins was aware of the July 1, 1982 house-party. She was aware of the similarities between Dr. Ford’s description of the event where she was assaulted and Justice Kavanaugh’s description of the July 1 house-party. So, there was no conceivable justification for Senator Collins to use the alternative perspective of non-recollection claims and failures to act in order to argue that the event described by Dr. Ford did not happen.

The blank memories of the five male fact witnesses

A conundrum exists about the supposedly blank memories of the males (excluding Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge), who were fact witnesses. Is it credible that all of them have no recollection of the house-party. It isn’t in my view!

It is not credible to me that the boys don’t recall the party, based on the demographics

Another conundrum for me is whether any of the fact witnesses could have no recollection of the house-party. At the party, underage teens without parental supervision were drinking beer. There were seven boys and either one or two younger girls. Some of the five boys must have good or exceptional memories and even recall events that are not especially memorable.

It is not credible to me that any fact witness would have no recollection of the house-party after the details and his presence at the event have been confirmed. It is preposterous that none of them remembers it, in my opinion.

Dr. Ford’s departure would have been noticeable

Dr. Ford was too young to drive to the party and would have arrived with another party attendee, likely Ms. Keyser. When Dr. Ford left, there was a 50% or 100% reduction in the girls at the party (at which seven boys remained). So, her departure would have been noticeable.

Moreover, Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge, and Dr. Ford had been alone on second floor for a period time before the two boys returned downstairs without her. That also undermines any possible claim that even one of the others who were present doesn’t recall the house-party. For each boy who was there, the group of three being on the second floor was either unexpected, and thus noticeable, or expected and therefor memorable.

Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge noisily returned downstairs without Dr. Ford, after being upstairs alone with her. Thereafter, either one or both girls left unexpectedly. Those facts undermine any notion that the others who were present have no recollection of the event. How many events similar to the July 1, 1982 house-party did they attend, or host? Ms. Keyser indicated that she didn’t recall any similar events.

I believe the fact witnesses know whether or not they were there

In my opinion, not only is it unbelievable that any of the boys would have no recollection of having been at the July 1, 1982 house-party, it is unbelievable that they wouldn’t know for sure whether or not they were at the party. They should each know that they wouldn’t have forgotten being at the event, and, accordingly, know if they attended.

So, a claim by any boy that he doesn’t know if he were there should be viewed as dubious, in my opinion. I would consider such a claim as an admission that the person was present and recalls the event. That conclusion could be confirmed in some cases, based on the known quality of an individual’s memory.

There may be gaps in our knowledge about some of the fact witnesses

The possibility exists that Dr. Ford’s recollection has been refreshed by the details provided by Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. So, she may now recall and be able to confirm the identities of other boys who were present and other specifics about the event. However, at the moment, there may be gaps or inaccuracies in what we know about the individual fact witnesses.

Some of the fact-witnesses may not have gone on record about what they recall

Other considerations could affect the analysis above concerning individual boys who are listed as present in Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. First, it may be possible that the FBI didn’t interview some of the boys listed as having been present. While that shouldn’t be the case, it might be since Trump administration officials constrained the FBI investigation.

I believe that any such witness, who had a memory of the event, would have had a duty to come forward. Such a witness could have made his memories known either to the FBI or the public.

But one or more of them may not have weighed in yet.

Others may have made non-public statements

Second, Mr. Guadette, who hosted the party, made a statement to the FBI that is not public. It is also possible that other witnesses made statements that are not reflected in the public record.

Any such statement that either directly supported or directly contradicted Dr. Ford’s recollections would likely have been a focus during the confirmation proceedings. Since there was no such focus, it seems likely that no witness admitted to having an actual memory of the house-party.

Based on the existing evidence, any nonpublic witness statement that denied Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982, would have been inaccurate and likely untruthful. So, I will assume that all of the witnesses who were interviewed claimed not to recall the house-party.

It is conceivable, but unlikely, that one or more of the boys wasn’t actually present

Third, it is possible that one or more of the boys didn’t actually attend the house-party. We know that the July 1, 1982 calendar entry is not completely accurate since it omitted Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser.

But, that error involved omitting people who were there, not including people who were not. Also, according to Justice Kavanaugh, the attendee list was presumptively made after the event. So, any error would have been intentional.

Based on Justice Kavanaugh’s testimony concerning his practices in keeping his calendar, the listed boys did attend the house-party. It is true that Justice Kavanaugh is not entirely credible. But there is no evident reason for him to have incorrectly listed a boy as having been present.

The purported memory failures of Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge

Based on Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar and Dr. Ford’s recollection, there is no doubt that he, Mr. Judge, and Mr. Smyth attended the July 1, 1982 house-party, although each claimed to have no memory of the event. We can also presume that the host, Timmy Gaudette, was also there for sure.

We also know the July 1 house-party was the event at which Dr. Ford reported that she was sexually assaulted. That is a fact about which Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly gave knowingly false testimony.

Their non-recollection claims are not credible

Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge couldn’t have forgotten the house-party for the same reasons that apply to the five male fact witnesses. However, there are additional reasons that they couldn’t have forgotten the July 1, 1982 house-party.

For example, they couldn’t have overlooked having been alone with Dr. Ford in the second-floor bedroom. And, as described in the Blog #2 in this series, given the proof that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982 house-party, the possibility that she is lying about having been alone in the bedroom with Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge is virtually nonexistent.

So, in my opinion, Kavanaugh’s and Judge’s claims that they don’t recall the interaction with Dr. Ford in the bedroom and that they don’t recall the July 1, 1982 house-party are preposterous. That conclusion doesn’t even take account of the implications for his credibility of the multiple instances in which Justice Kavanaugh gave knowingly false testimony or of his confession by the omission of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser from his July 1, 1982 calendar entry.

Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge have forgone any opportunity to propose an innocent explanation or a misunderstanding

Justice Kavanaugh could have disputed what happened in the second-floor bedroom or argued the interpretation of what occurred. But, his nomination would not have survived if that was his defense, given Dr. Ford’s credible testimony.

Justice Kavanaugh has no practical ability to contest Dr. Ford’s allegation

However, Justice Kavanaugh’s multiple false statements relating to her sexual assault allegations are a confession in 2018 of his guilt. Moreover, his omission of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser from his July 1, 1982 calendar entry was a contemporaneous confession of his guilt.

His 1982 confession eliminates the misunderstanding defense. So, while the ability might exist to contest specific details, Justice Kavanaugh has no practical ability to challenge the substance of Dr. Ford’s allegations.

Mr. Judge has no practical ability to contest Dr. Ford’s allegation

Dr. Ford’s allegation would have been easier for her to make if Mr. Judge wasn’t in the bedroom with them, since it would have only been her word against Justice Kavanaugh’s. Mr. Judge’s allegedly blank memory supported Justice Kavanaugh’s denial since he couldn’t have forgotten having been in the second-floor bedroom with Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh, much less having observed or participated in a sexual assault on her.

But Dr. Ford reported the facts as they occurred, in my view. It is not credible, in my opinion, that Mr. Judge has no recollection either of the interaction with Dr. Ford in the bedroom or of the July 1, 1982 house-party. So, while the ability might exist to contest specific details, Mr. Judge has no practical ability to challenge the substance of Dr. Ford’s allegations, in my view.

Multiple witnesses are not telling the truth

Taking account of the considerations discussed in Blogs #5A, #5B, and #6, multiple witnesses to the house-party were dishonest, in my opinion, when they claimed not to recall the July 1, 1982 event. It is virtually certain in my view that their dishonesty was not random conduct of individuals party attendees but was the product of a conspiracy led by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The conspirators would reasonably have thought that if they stuck together in “not-remembering,” no one would take Dr. Ford’s word over theirs. But-for Justice Kavanaugh’s July 1, 1982 calendar entry and Dr. Ford’s description of the event where she was assaulted, that assessment would have been correct.

Notably, Justice Kavanaugh was the beneficiary of the conspiracy, at least in 2018. There was no reason for the other males and Ms. Keyser to lie about remembering the July 1 house-party, except (i) to dishonestly support a false denial by Justice Kavanaugh or (ii) because they were already complicit and acted out of self-interest.

But all of the other witnesses had a choice of how to proceed. They could each have made the decision to tell Justice Kavanaugh not to move forward because they wouldn’t lie about recalling the July 1, 1982 house-party.

They consciously took on criminal exposure because they didn’t think they could get caught

A false non-recollection claim, in this context, would not be an innocent or harmless act. In a communication with the FBI or the Senate Judiciary Committee, it would be a federal crime. A collective false claim to not recalling the house-party would involve a conspiracy, which is an additional federal crime.

Those federal crimes might have seemed riskless when it appeared that the only way even to prove that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party was through the testimony of one or more of the others who attended the event. But that is not the case.

Because of Dr. Ford’s detailed recollections and Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar entry, it is provable that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982 house-party. And it is evident that some or all of the fact witnesses must be lying about what they recall. Dr. Ford didn’t makeup, imagine, or get confused about being at the event where she alleges that Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge sexually assaulted her.

Any House Judiciary Committee investigation should examine his conspiracy with most or all of the other witnesses

As part of any House Judiciary Committee investigation of Justice Kavanaugh, the committee should question and investigate all of the parties who witnessed the July 1, 1982 house-party. Many of those witnesses cannot be telling the truth and must be participants in a conspiracy with Justice Kavanaugh.

I would recommend that the committee and its staff undertake the investigation directly and not subcontract it to the FBI except for specifically identified tasks. The committee need not make itself dependent on any other entity.

The witnesses and evidence are in plain sight, rather than needing to be discovered. The importance of the party attendees to the investigation is not as witnesses to an alleged sexual assault, but as witnesses regarding:

their specific recollections and memory capabilities,
the memory capabilities of the other attendees,
whether Ms. Keyser attended the house-party,
the already provable fact that Dr. Ford was at the house-party,
Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge being on the second floor with Dr. Ford,
the fact that Justice Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge couldn’t have forgotten the house-party,
how Justice Kavanaugh could have been confident that they wouldn’t give testimony in support of Dr. Ford’s accusation,
communications in 1982, 2018, or any other time, related in any way to Dr. Ford’s allegation, including all interactions with any of the other witnesses.

In a publicly acknowledged investigation, there may also be other witnesses who would volunteer pertinent information. An example might be information about the known memory capabilities of the party attendees.

The house-party witnesses have significant criminal exposure if they are not the person who cooperates

I believe that the five male fact witnesses and Ms. Keyser should refresh their recollections, based on the information provided by Dr. Ford’s testimony and Justice Kavanaugh’s calendar. They should then serve the interests of the country by testifying truthfully about the July 1, 1982 house-party. If they continue to implausibly claim to have no recollection, the inference should be drawn that they are so deeply involved in a conspiracy with Justice Kavanaugh that they are unable to extract themselves.

Seven or eight witnesses may have pertinent information about the conspiracy. And at least two of them are already have a significant risk-exposure to criminal liability for their statements that are provably false, based on the fact that Dr. Ford was definitely at the July 1, 1982 house-party.

The lessons from the so-called “Prisoner’s dilemma” are instructive. They indicate that every one of the witnesses should be willing to cut a deal to lower their exposure to punishment.

Each witness to the July 1, 1982 house-party should be interrogated under oath in keeping with the serious nature of their roles in the investigation of Justice Kavanaugh and with the possibility that they may not have been truthful to date. In my view, the committee should aggressively use grants of immunity to obtain honest and forthright testimony from the house-party witnesses.

Looking Forward

Blog #7A will examine the dishonest Republican response to Dr. Ford’s allegations, in particular, the role played by Senator Collins.