Blog 5A Table of Contents

Return to Blog #5A: Kavanaugh’s primary defense was both irrelevant & false.

• Kavanaugh’s primary defense – the other witnesses’ claims not to recall anything – were both irrelevant and mostly false
  • How did we get to this point?
  • Blog #5A topics
  • The non-recollection claims of the others who were present have played a crucial role
    • As the centerpiece of Kavanaugh’s defense strategy
    • In distorting the press coverage of Dr. Ford’s allegation against Justice Kavanaugh
  • A conspiracy exists to hide the fact that Dr. Ford was present at the July 1, 1982, house-party
    • At a minimum, there is a two-person conspiracy among Kavanaugh and Judge
    • The conspiracy is based on making false non-recollection claims
    • My conclusion is that the conspiracy includes most or all of the witnesses
    • Justice Kavanaugh bet the ranch that his non-recollection conspiracy includes all of the other witnesses
  • There is an alternative perspective from which the non-recollection claims have been viewed that can make them seem material
    • What the alternative perspective is
  • There are two critical issues concerning the use of the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims as evidence
    • The weight that should have been given to the non-recollection claims
    • Was the political and media impact of the non-recollection claims inappropriate
  • What weight should have been given to the other witnesses’ non-recollection claims?
    • There are three fact-scenarios to examine
    • In two of the three fact-scenarios, no weight should have been given
    • Scenario 1: The non-recollection claims viewed without further corroboration of Dr. Ford’s testimony
      • Someone must be lying
      • Either Dr. Ford or Ms. Keyser must be lying
      • The liars would be truly despicable
      • The Republicans’ use of the alternative perspective was despicable, even in fact-scenario
    • Scenario 2: The non-recollection claims only considering that the July 1, 1982, house-party occurred
      • The non-recollection claims should be given no weight against Dr. Ford in this scenario
    • Scenario 3: The non-recollection claims taking account of the fact that Dr. Ford was at the July 1, 1982, house-party
      • The common-sense conclusion that Dr. Ford was present on July 1, 1982 should have been apparent to observers
      • The non-recollection claims should have been given no weight against Dr. Ford in this scenario
      • The other witnesses’ non-recollection claims should have been given no weight as evidence against Dr. Ford
  • The non-recollection claims inappropriately impacted both the political and news media discussions of Dr. Ford’s allegation
    • Senator Collins improperly applied the alternative perspective to the non-recollection claims of the other witnesses
      • Senator Collins irrationally expanded the alternative perspective of non-recollection claims, including by double-counting
    • The application of the alternative perspective by the news media was flawed, even only taking account of Dr. Ford’s testimony
    • The application of the alternative perspective was egregious, taking account of the calendar evidence
    • Although the alternative perspective should have supported Dr. Ford, it was used against her
      • The observers who misapplied the alternative perspective missed the proof that Dr. Ford was at the house-party and the implications thereof
  • Looking Forward