How about she made it up? Is that a likely explanation??
While Loftus is good and I respect her excellent work, I understand she helped pick the OJ Simpson jury to get him those most easily manipulated.
Reminds me of the folks who get hypnosis regression to recall past lives and they all end up being a very famous king or queen!!!
>> Memory expert, Dr. Loftus...
Seriously.
It turns out that the accuser has done work herself with victims of trauma (in conjunction with several co-researchers); and, found a range of reactions.
Even an eye-witness account by a victim in real time is “iffy.” You normally want corroborating evidence. These include physical evidence and third-party eye witnesses. Also, a pattern of behavior. Having said this, a report in real time by a victim would usually warrant some kind of police investigation to try to development corroborating evidence.
In the case of a recovered memory and a long-delayed report of abuse or assault, which report is uncorroborated or even contradicted, absolutely no.
The issue is VERY controversial. Similar to lie-detector tests. While lie-detector tests are widely used in many settings, the results of lie-detector tests are not admitted in courts of law because they’re not reliable. Some people, e.g., pathological liars, can pass lie-detector tests while lying. Others can pass lie-detector tests because they believe their false statements to be true. Regarding recovered memory, they too are used by a good number of therapists and have been found useful in therapy and in law enforcement. But, they have also been used to make many proven false accusations. They, by themselves, are unreliable.
Because of the possibility of recovered memory, statutes of limitation on child abuse and sexual assault have been extended in many jurisdictions. This is a valid response. In cases where the recovered memory is corroborated by other evidence, legal action can move forward, even to conviction. But, where the only evidence is the recovered memory, no, legal action should not move forward. This is only adding to the whatever condition warranted the therapy, and needless cost to the taxpayer and, especially, to the accused.
Especially concerning is when recovered memories involve famous people, the possibility of pecuniary gain, or other personal motivation, and all you have is the recovered memory of the accuser and the denial of the accused.
Double especially concerning is when the recovered memory is contradicted by third-party witnesses, physical evidence and patterns of behavior.
Now I will be blunt: in the case of Judge K.’s accuser, we are talking of a party girl who started drinking heavily as a young teenager and boasted of having sex with dozens of boys in her high school yearbook, and who continued to be a party girl after high school.
Have we become so numb to drug and alcohol abuse and to sexual promiscuity that we cannot consider the character of the accuser?
Ford should be asked at what age did she go on “the pill”.
I distrust anyone with old memories suddenly surfaced. Don’t need a PHD to explain the added details over time aspect. This story is crap, period.
““I don’t see any evidence that she said the name at that time [in 2012], so when did she attach the name of Brett Kavanaugh to the episode?”
We may never know because -— redacted.
Grassley hasn’t even seen the unredacted because — republican
Memory Distortion and False
Memory Creation
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.497.8690&rep=rep1&type=pdf
What is wrong with Sen. Chuck Grassley? Ford's demands do not stand either the "law" test or the "smell" test....this is about as bad as Pelosi's Mar 09, 2010 "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It".
That was really dumb and this accusation against Bret Kavanaugh is dumber. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Get on with it Sen. Grassley.
One who drinks enough to blackout is more prone to do a lot of things they might later regret-—with a lot of people...and to protect themselves from their own memories of their ‘escapades”, they are prone to try to make crap up that would have taken their own prerogative/willingness to be that way away from them and lay the blame on some other party. Don’t have to be a psycho-ologist to know that.
I went through therapy myself a number of years ago. My health plan agreed to ten sessions. Never did the therapist get into having me talk about my high school years or wallowing in past memories, for such a treatment plan would be counterproductive to reacting to the present and helping me develop healthy reactions to present problems. Therefore I can’t understand a therapy program where a patient is encouraged to focus on unpleasant past memories, wallow in them and expand upon them to an extent false memories could be created and the incident could be magnified in the person’s mind, as a way of helping the person to move forward in the present. It sounds like a horror movie scenario to me. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford could play these roles in an oldtime Hollywood movie.
When I was 15 I was hugged a long each time twice by a relative’s husband. Once he gave me a drink. A whiskey sour. Nothing else, just long close hugging. I remember exactly where and under what circumstances each occurred.
Occam’s razor says she made it up.
I believe an assault occured, possibly just like she says but I think she plugged Kavanaugh in as the assailant when it was some other John Doe.
Sorry Kaslin, but what happened with your cutting and pasting? LOL. e.g. “Our talk inevitably circled back to the fact that we just “don’t know” so many things about this case.”
Witness #4 has come forward and denied Ford’s accusation, National Review has #3
Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh’s Accuser’s Allegations
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/