- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 1,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I've watched and listened to multiple mainstream media tv, internet and radio outlets regarding the claims that Cavanaugh raped Christine Ford in his & her teenage years. Its obvious that they are attempting to convince America of his guilt. In order to pull that off, they are selectively reporting what is mostly hearsay, while practically omitting the actual evidence that would effectively negate her claims in almost any court, by providing more than enough reasonable doubt. Obviously progressives DONT want Cavanaugh confirmed, but not liking someone's politics does NOT make that person a serial rapist(or a Nazi btw).
Here's the actual evidence that the media are omitting or under-reporting, in favor of hearsay:
➡ Her hand picked witnesses testimony. They all testified to NOT recall any aspects of her story. They said they don't recall any such party, nor do they recall ever seeing or meeting Cavanaugh at any party. Worse yet, they don't recall her claiming to have been raped by Cavanaugh.
➡ She has changed her story regarding the number of co-conspirators in the rape-room, from 4 to just 2.
➡ She conveniently can remember the allegedly criminal details with much clarity, but strangely, she cannot remember the house, the street it was on or the general vicinity.
➡ Her claim of the timeframe have changed radically, from "early 80s" to "mid 80s". So it could've happened anywhere from roughly 1980 to 1987!
☑ Polygraphs are not admissible in court and are unreliable, and can be easily defeated by relatively simple means. *See my new thread on polygraph unreliability.
☑ But if hearsay and speculation is more important, then why didnt her own parents sign on to the paper she offered up as a list of character witnesses who support her claims?
The media have largely omitted all that pertinent evidence, in favor of hearsay. But we don't convict people on hearsay, especially when there's actual evidence that weakens or disproves the accusation!
Here's the actual evidence that the media are omitting or under-reporting, in favor of hearsay:
➡ Her hand picked witnesses testimony. They all testified to NOT recall any aspects of her story. They said they don't recall any such party, nor do they recall ever seeing or meeting Cavanaugh at any party. Worse yet, they don't recall her claiming to have been raped by Cavanaugh.
➡ She has changed her story regarding the number of co-conspirators in the rape-room, from 4 to just 2.
➡ She conveniently can remember the allegedly criminal details with much clarity, but strangely, she cannot remember the house, the street it was on or the general vicinity.
➡ Her claim of the timeframe have changed radically, from "early 80s" to "mid 80s". So it could've happened anywhere from roughly 1980 to 1987!
☑ Polygraphs are not admissible in court and are unreliable, and can be easily defeated by relatively simple means. *See my new thread on polygraph unreliability.
☑ But if hearsay and speculation is more important, then why didnt her own parents sign on to the paper she offered up as a list of character witnesses who support her claims?
The media have largely omitted all that pertinent evidence, in favor of hearsay. But we don't convict people on hearsay, especially when there's actual evidence that weakens or disproves the accusation!
Last edited:
