So you asked why and I gave you an answer. If you don't want it don't ask for it.
Not as a rule, no. Even right after the assault. Trauma does things to memory. Stop just saying things that suit your narrative.
Here's a link to a Time article written in 2009, entitled Why Rape and Trauma Survivors Have Fragmented and Incomplete Memories. It was written by James Hopper, Ph.D., who instructs investigators, prosecutors, judges and military commanders on the neurobiology of sexual assault, and David Lisak, Ph.D., a forensic consultant, researcher, national trainer and the board president of 1in6.
"A door opens and a police officer is suddenly staring at the wrong end of a gun. In a split second, his brain is hyper-focused on that gun. It is very likely that he will not recall any of the details that were irrelevant to his immediate survival: Did the shooter have a moustache? What color was the shooter’s hair? What was the shooter wearing?
The officer’s reaction is not a result of poor training. It’s his brain reacting to a life-threatening situation just the way it is supposed to—just the way the brain of a rape victim reacts to an assault."
Rather, the one friend of hers she recalled, who wasn't told of what happened at the party, who has no reason to recall it decades after the fact, doesn't recall it. In fact, I'd bet most of us have forgotten most of the parties we attended during our high school years that passed without incident so far as we knew. That said, knowing her friend, Ms. Keyser has been clear in stating she believes Dr. Ford's narrative.
The other two would face criminal and civil liability for admitting to Ford's testimony, have vested interests in refuting it. Kavanaugh has denied being there. The other, curiously enough, though named as an accomplice, hasn't matched that denial, and has only said that he has no memory of the party in question.
I supported Kavanaugh's nomination to the Court. You're making things up again.
Rather, you are the one declaring Ford's testimony a lie. I'm the one saying neither of us can know and that I found her testimony in keeping with what should be expected and his similarly compelling on the point of contest. I'm the one looking at facts and recognizing that we just don't have enough to know who is telling the truth.
What about it?
"Martin N. Seif, a clinical psychologist, anxiety treatment specialist and one of the founders of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, says Ford's ability to fly despite her fear is "very typical..."People who have a fear of flying can fly -- they fly with difficulty, they fly irregularly," said Seif. "Some people fly with great difficulty, some people fly with a lots of pills and medication. Also some people can fly one day and not another." Link
It's clear that her lawyers were contacted a number of times. And her response on Sept. 22 was as follows:
“I have asked my lawyers to continue discussions with your staff about the conditions you have proposed. As I am not a lawyer or a Senator, I am relying on them and you to ensure that the Committee will agree to conditions that will allow me to testify in a fair setting that won’t disrupt families and become a media TV show.”
At the hearing she said:
“Well, I was willing—I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request. … So that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane, but I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.”
Sounds to me like her lawyers weren't as clear as they needed to be and that what she's speaking to are the conditions relating to her testimony being taken. Ultimately she came to them...so?
I don't have a liberal agenda, I have a rational one, which reading over your continuing misrepresentations strikes me as opposing enough where your position is concerned.
On the plus side, your Cowboys looked like their coaches figured out how to run their offense...for now.
Last edited:
