The Brett Kavanaugh situation is not especially interesting from a forensic point of view, since there is no practical way of anyone knowing what might have transpired in a private bedroom 35+ years ago (if indeed these two people ever met at all) . But it is kind of interesting from a human cognition point of view. It shows the worthless nature of denials in this kind of situation.
Christine Blasey Ford says Kavanaugh did X, Y, and Z. Kavanaugh denies X, Y, and Z. The average person can’t help thinking “the truth must lie somewhere in the middle, so I’m pretty sure that he did X and Y.” (Look at your Facebook friends’ statements and comments on media articles about this. People express their knowledge of what might have happened with the same certainty that they use describing what they personally had for lunch.)
I think he would actually have been better off by saying “Why don’t you ask her some more questions to see if her story makes sense to you?” or “Does it seem like an odd coincidence that she started telling folks this story, including her therapist, in 2012 when my name was put forward as a likely Mitt Romney Supreme Court nominee.” or “Gee, have you read ‘Factitious sexual harassment’ by Feldman-Schorrig where she talks about ‘the motives that most commonly underlie the wish for victim designation’?” or “Did you find out where the party was and go have a look in the bedroom of that house for yourself?”? If Kavanaugh had asked people to accept or reject the entire Christine Blasey Ford story, he would at least have a lot more people saying “I don’t think he did anything at all.”
[The same thing happens in Family Court in the winner-take-all states. A plaintiff says “the defendant is having sex with the 4-year-old, which is why I need to be the only parent” (this request will later be modified to “well, the child should be with the defendant only every other weekend”, but nobody will notice the apparent logical inconsistency in wanting one’s child to be abused 3 or 4 nights out of 14). The defendant says, Kavanaugh-style, “I didn’t do it.” The judge splits the difference in his or her mind: “Well, the defendant probably isn’t having sex with the 4-year-old, but something perverted is going on, so I’m going to make the plaintiff the primary parent and limit the perversion to every other weekend.” The primary parent gets a free house, a 15-19-year (depending on state) shower of tax-free cash, the pleasure of the child’s company, and free babysitting 3-4 nights out of 14. The defendant might have been better off pointing out that the accusations of sexual abuse didn’t start until the quest for cash was on and simply asking the judge “Is it plausible that every wealthy defendant in your courtroom also happens to be a child molester?”]
Readers: Do you agree that Kavanaugh’s denial didn’t convince anyone? If so, what should he have said?
Full post, including comments 