Kavanaugh accuser wants a full FBI investigation before she testifies

originally posted by: knoxie
VERY interesting article from conservative operative david brock. he worked with Kavanaugh and doesn't think he belongs on the supreme court.

written BEFORE fords allegations.

In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.

Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by pedaling the same garbage at Starr's office.

A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.

Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.

LINK

So this is a revenge tactic a long with a delaying tactic nice...

Kavanaugh' is on Fox News tonight at 7pm with Martha McCallum and he claims he never even had sex until many years after high school.

a reply to: Identified

He also stated that, even though he admitted to drinking, he never got drunk enough to lose memory.

TheRedneck

a reply to: knoxie

Avenatti via Twitter:

"Warning:..."

What, he found a government-employed porn star this time?

Doesn't surprise me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Wonder how the Dems are going to spin all this? I will be surprised if Ford even shows up on Thursday.

Kavanaugh also says he and Ford were not in the same social circles and he didn't know her.

www.chicagotribune.com... seems finestine wants another postponement and that she dosent think ford should testify on Thursday now ,if she doesnt testify there will be a vote

www.theroot.com...

The Case On Nov. 8, 1979, a black man allegedly entered an antique store on Whitney Avenue in Gretna, La. He allegedly grabbed the owner, a 39-year-old white woman, from behind in the empty store and raped her twice at gunpoint. The victim never clearly saw her attacker’s face. In February 1980, Alexander had a consensual sexual encounter with a white woman who asked him for money and later accused him of sexual assault. Even though the woman’s charges were unsubstantiated and no charges were ever filed against Alexander, authorities had his photo on file. That’s all they needed. Gretna police showed the antique-store owner Alexander’s picture, and she “tentatively” identified him as her assailant out of hundreds of photos shown to her. Three days later, police placed Alexander in a lineup, and by that time, the store owner was “sure” that he was the man who had attacked her. This was four months after she was attacked in the dark, from behind, at gunpoint. Alexander was the only man in the lineup whose picture had also been in the photo array. According to the Innocence Project: Research has shown that multiple identification procedures can contaminate a witness’s memory, causing a witness to become confused about whether he or she recognizes the person from the event or the earlier procedure, while also making the witness more confident in his or her identification. After a trial that lasted one day—during which Alexander’s attorney, Joseph Tosh, failed to make an opening statement or call any witnesses for the defense, and failed to adequately cross-examine the state’s witnesses about the identification—Alexander was sentenced to life in prison on Dec. 10, 1980. Still, he never stopped insisting that he was innocent. Alexander reached out to the Innocence Project in 1996, and the organization quickly discovered that critical DNA evidence had been destroyed only four years into his sentence. Alexander’s freedom felt like an impossible dream, but in 2013, there was a break in the case. Pubic hair recovered from the antique store where the rape took place was found at the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab. The hairs belonged to neither Alexander nor the victim. This fact, along with Alexander’s lack of competent counsel and the flawed identification procedure, was enough for Judge Darensburg to overturn his conviction.

goes on to talk and relate to other articles i will share on the lack of clarity in witness identifications

www.innocenceproject.org... link to the innocence project who were responsable for clearing the above man in quoted article

www.scientificamerican.com...

N 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? Eyewitness identification typically involves selecting the alleged perpetrator from a police lineup, but it can also be based on police sketches and other methods. Soon after selecting a suspect, eyewitnesses are asked to make a formal statement confirming the ID and to try to recall any other details about events surrounding the crime. At the trial, which may be years later, eyewitnesses usually testify in court. Because individuals with certain psychological disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder and substance dependence, are at high risk for criminal involvement, they are also at heightened risk for false identifications by eyewitnesses. Surveys show that most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. But although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. For example, jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most studies indicate that highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate—and sometimes no more so—than those who are less confident. In addition to educating jurors about the uncertainties surrounding eyewitness testimony, adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate. Reconstructing Memories The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall. Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies. Given the dangers of mistaken convictions based on faulty eyewitness estimony, how can we minimize such errors? The Innocence Project has proposed legislation to improve the accuracy of eyewitness IDs. These proposals include videotaping the identification procedure so that juries can determine if it was conducted properly, putting individuals in the lineup who resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator, informing the viewer of the lineup that the perpetrator may or may not be in it, and ensuring that the person administering the lineup or other identification procedure does not know who the suspect is. Although only a few cities and states have adopted laws to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications, there seems to be a growing interest in doing so.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Outlier13
It's amazing we are 41 pages into this topic that is clearly nothing more than a stall tactic of the left to stall the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh until after the midterms.

Nothing more.

Kavenaugh is not getting confirmed.

Watch what happens.

Oops
That didn't go well

a reply to: shooterbrody

Uh oh

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Outlier13
It's amazing we are 41 pages into this topic that is clearly nothing more than a stall tactic of the left to stall the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh until after the midterms.

Nothing more.

Kavenaugh is not getting confirmed.

Watch what happens.

Oops
That didn't go well

I didn't think he'd get confirmed either, but pleased he did.
Probably 20 years minimum now of a conservative SC. Trump delivered what conservatives have been fighting for decades to achieve.
RBG next.

But before then...
... end DACA
... end ACA

Two big decisions coming up.