It is reasonable to state that individuals not directly in the room at the time of the assault may not remember the event at all.
However, the accuser named them specifically as witnesses and all witnesses have given the same testimony which *contradicts* her claim.
However, the accuser named them specifically as witnesses and all witnesses have given the same testimony which *contradicts* her claim.
Advocates of Ford are presenting the scenario as though random individuals who attended a party are being asked to remember details of the event when they had no part in the assault. But Ford herself describes it as a very small gathering with direct witnesses.
Let's play out the scenario. There are three boys and one girl with her at a house party. Two of the boys are drunk and push her into a room and begin to assault her (she claims Judge jumped onto them both before she escaped) and she ran from the room into the bathroom.
She must have left the party as well and the boys must have reacted in some way. How did the party end? The other two witnesses may have been in another room. Would they have seen Ford leave upset? Would they have interacted with Kavanaugh and Judge afterwards?
The issue at hand is not what happened in the space when the door was shut, but what happened before and after. That is the purpose of the witness testimony from those not in the room. If they both do not recall the party, before or after, it matters.
More importantly, if the female witness states she has never met Kavanaugh, then it brings into question how this party happened and what Kavanaugh did before and after the alleged assault. If he never interacted with her, how did they both get to and end the alleged party?
The counter scenario is this:
You attended a party with a small group with people you may not have known. You are downstairs and three of the members disappear, 20 minutes later one leaves and later says she was assaulted upstairs and you are named as being at the party.
You attended a party with a small group with people you may not have known. You are downstairs and three of the members disappear, 20 minutes later one leaves and later says she was assaulted upstairs and you are named as being at the party.
Their argument is that if you say 'I don't even recall the party', it does not impact the accusation of the assault because you were downstairs and had no knowledge of the events upstairs and to you the party was unremarkable.
But the reality is that the accuser is referencing an event that took place 35 yrs ago and these are the *only* ppl who can substantiate *any* detail of her story. That is what matters. She named them as witnesses and they not only do not remember the party, they contradict her.
The Left is fixated on the idea Ford is being accused of lying about the assault itself. What they are refusing to recognize is that it is the event, the witnesses and the accused we are challenging as those specific details have all been denied or contradicted.
