Judge Brett Kavanaugh Is Not On Trial

In the article Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing isn’t a trial. The standard isn’t ‘reasonable doubt.’ the Washington Post tells us Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings are more like a job interview than a trial. As such the burden is on Kavanaugh to disprove allegations rather than for others to provide proof above a reasonable doubt that their allegations are true. Personally I have never had, or heard of, a job interview in which someone came in off the street to make allegations against the interviewee that would disqualify them from the position. My job interviews have involved me presenting enough evidence in such a manner as to convince my potential employer that I was qualified for the job, which Judge Kavanaugh has done. Who would accept failing a job interview because someone walked in during the interview saying the high school or college degree on the resume or application was falsified without any proof other than the statement of purposed fact.

Numerous articles can be found asserting the unreliability of witness accounts. From a 2010 article in Scientific American, Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony.

Memory researchers tell us that memory is not like a video being replayed as we tell a story. Each time we tell a story, the story is reconstructed, often reconstructed based on the audience to which we are speaking and our other personal beliefs at the time we are telling the story. This is why it is important to ask questions of Dr. Ford about anyone she may have relayed the details of the alleged assault to during the time frame of the alleged assault, rather than 20 to 30 years later. Details of the location of the party, the reason of the party, the date of the party, how she got to and from the party would add credence to her claims as supporting evidence.

Memories can also be reconstructed. Because our memories do not work like replaying a video there are blanks in them that are filled in as we reconstruct. With the assertion that Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk at the party, Dr. Ford could not be asked "Were you drunk at the party?" but rather "Were you drinking at the party?". Leading with the assertion that she could have been drunk at the party could fill in that portion of her memory that she was when maybe she wasn't. This is why lawyers are forbidden to ask leading questions during court cases.

Memory reconstruction can be a tricky thing. As we put our memories back together we can be lead by others to believe inaccurate details in the memory. This is important due to Judge Kavanaugh's second accuser. From the USA Today article What we know about Deborah Ramirez, the second woman to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault we get the account of Deborah Ramirez reconstructing her memories:

The New Yorker report said that at first she "was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough" to come forward.

Not six days working with a memory expert or a psychologist, six days consulting with her attorney. An attorney that is being paid (and it's not clear who specifically is paying for these high power attorneys) to support these claims, but also stands to gain a considerable amount of name recognition and publicity from these hearings. I personally find this very suspicious.

In a way the Washington Post is correct, this is not a hearing. It does have most of the earmarks of a hearing however. Everyone has lawyers, there are charges and there are a panel of judges that have to decide a verdict. The verdict is whether to recommend Judge Kavanaugh for a full vote to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. If found guilty, there is also a sentence, Judge Kavanaugh looses his reputation, is denied reaching the pinnacle of his career, and could eventually even loose his current position.

But this is not a trial. Supporters of the accusers do not want them to have to prove their assertions beyond a reasonable doubt as would be the case in a trial. A trial would also have a jury of peers to evaluate the credibility of those testifying. Finally, in a trial Judge Kavanaugh would be judged by someone impartial. Kavanaugh has a panel of judges, all of which are politically motivated focused not on reaching the truth but on advancing their respective political party.

Additional sources:
A Judicial Confirmation Hearing Is Not a Trial
Chuck Grassley Releases Letter Christine Blasey Ford Sent To Dianne Feinstein
Dr. Ford's Letter
The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
How reliable is eyewitness testimony?
Eyewitness Testimony