A highly credentialed, professional woman has, reluctantly and out of a professed sense of civic duty, made serious allegations concerning the moral makeup and fitness for office of Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh has denied the accusation and multiple prior background checks have unearthed no evidence of wrongdoing. At least one senator, Hatch of Utah, has suggested that the accuser must be mistaken as to the identity of her assailant.
Many question how such a "he said, she said" issue can fairly be determined given the passage of time, the apparent absence of tangible evidence and the dearth of corroborating witnesses. In fact, it is not uncommon for investigators to confront this conundrum and there exists a standard protocol for attempting to arrive at the truth. The triers of fact must consider, among other factors, the following circumstances.
Is the narrative of the victim credible, does it have the ring of truth? How well did the accuser know the accused? Whether a friend or a stranger obviously bears upon the victim's ability to recognize and identify the perpetrator. Was the condition of the young woman impaired in any way that might have affected her ability accurately to observe and remember? Does the accuser have any motive to be untruthful? Are there other persons who may have witnessed some part of the event and what do they recall? Do there exist any earlier accounts of the assault given by the accuser before it became politicized and were those accounts consistent with what is now alleged?
These are but a few of the avenues the senators should pursue in making the momentous judgment on whether to approve or reject the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment