One of Christine Blasey Ford's Supposed Witnesses Denies Her Accusation

One of the supposed eyewitnesses and party attendees flat out denies the event took place.

You can forget both Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey Ford now says there were others around at the supposed party. One of them she identified as PJ. Well, PJ has come forward. He is Patrick J. Smyth and he says nope.

> "I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

I'm sure Ford's defenders will say the guys are sticking together on this. But the burden of proof is never on the accused in the United States.

Comments
No. 1-9
DavidMKern
DavidMKern

Regarding the media, or the Democratic Party, the burden of proof is never on the accused, unless his name is Donald Trump, unless he is a judge that supports constitutional rulings, or unless he is somebody that opposes their political platform. In those cases, the accused is declared guilty by virtue of an accusation, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change that.

Bosman
Bosman

Did you see this Erick"

Another cooperator bites the dust:

Classmate of Kavanaugh Accuser Backtracks after Guilty Claim Goes Viral

To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject.

— Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018 
Vandalii
Vandalii

"But the burden of proof is never on the accused in the United States."

Not true since Bork. Trial by media in the 21st century has taken on its own persona with the ubiquitous nature of the internet allowing complete conflation without any boundaries at all. Truth or lies are no longer critical in these arguments, it is who can get the most people to believe their story. We know there are those that will believe one side or the other just because they want it to be so. Many in the middle try to weigh facts, yet MSM almost always puts its finger on the scale so even those of with critical thinking skills find it difficult to navigate through the morass of "he said/she said".

Robert Moore
Robert Moore

Here's an interesting take on the accuser--somebody who does this for a living assesses whether she's making it up or not. The conclusion by this expert is that she's not, but this is worth reading because one of the key ways to tell a liar is that they over-dramatize an event to sell their story: the story this women tells is very believable because very simple and not very dramatic (two drunk guys rough-housing and involving a young girl and being inappropriate).

To me, the two possible scenarios here is that either the woman has the right account of what happened to her, or has remembered the wrong person. I don't think she's lying.

napleslover
napleslover

For me, the best case scenario is Kananaugh throws in the towel and says SCOTUS is not worth it for him and his family. AND Trump nominates Amy Barrett in his place, who should have been Trump's first pick.