Kansas Crimson

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:12 am And now the gang rapes. 4-chan my ass.

seahawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:04 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:01 am Elizabeth Loftus seems to lean my direction:

“I still feel that there’s a chance that continued psychotherapy beyond the initial disclosure session could have resulted in what it sometimes does - developing the story, making it more coherent, adding details. But did those details get developed in psychotherapy? And again, we don’t know, and I know she’s a psychology professor and seems to have done a lot of good work in statistics and biostatistics. You can have intelligent, educated people who develop distorted memories. It could happen to any of us.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmo ... h-n2521636

I wonder if Loftus alters her memories when reflecting back on the days when she thought that Ted Bundy was a nice young man, whom she testified for. Just as she testified for O. J. Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, the Hillside Strangler, the Menendez Brothers, the officers who beat Rodney King, the defendants in the Bosnian War Trials.

Loftus started out misquoting what actually happened in a trial and avoiding the actual trial transcript in developing her fraudulent theories and apparently has never stopped. She's simply a fraud.

seahawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:13 am

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:26 am

seahawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:04 am

I wonder if Loftus alters her memories when reflecting back on the days when she thought that Ted Bundy was a nice young man, whom she testified for. Just as she testified for O. J. Simpson, Timothy McVeigh, the Hillside Strangler, the Menendez Brothers, the officers who beat Rodney King, the defendants in the Bosnian War Trials.

Loftus started out misquoting what actually happened in a trial and avoiding the actual trial transcript in developing her fraudulent theories and apparently has never stopped. She's simply a fraud.

I don't know how she is viewed in the legal community, but in psychology, particularly in the discipline of cognitive psych, she is seen as a ground-breaking expert, and is usually at the forefront of any discussion involving memory, false memories, recovered memories, and eyewitness testimony. I have found her work to be thorough and well-researched.

I'm not sure she would have been called as an expert witness in 200-plus high-profile cases if she didn't know what she was talking about. It could be that human beings, just like their memories, are not black and white in nature. Memory is fraught with complexity and error, and that makes it very difficult to quantify. Even the best in a given field are wrong sometimes.

I remember a judge friend in New Mexico talking about going back into court to referee what he called the "whores," the expert witnesses like Elizabeth Loftus who are willing to assert their fraudulent and unscientific theorizing on behalf of serial killers and war crimes defendants.

In the legal process that I'm familiar with, police, prosecutors and judges looked at the consistency of witness statements with those of other witnesses rather than the unscientific ramblings of psychology professors who didn't even read the court transcripts that they extrapolated their spurious theories from. For example, in the statement of Julie Swetnick, they would look at:

1. The descriptions of Judge and Kavanaugh are consistent with those of Professor Ford.

2. Swetnick's mention of use of grain alcohol is consistent with other accounts.

3. The description of women who are taken advantage of because they're too drunk to defend themselves is consistent with other Yale accounts.

4. Swetnick's statement of being too intoxicated because of being drugged and that Kavanaugh was present is consistent with Yale accounts.

The rantings of psychology professors who pretend that their soft science research is equivalent to the scientific research of folks like Tradition KU, and who swoop into town to offer their extremely well-paid opinions on behalf of wealthy clients as to why the courts should disregard all other evidence and witness statements and rely on their "research"--not so much.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:04 pm It's over.

Put a fork in Kavanaugh.

I mean...do you see what he did on the 16th?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am Alls I know is that Swetnick holds a Public Trust Security Clearance.

If she made a false sworn statement she'll lose her clearance and her job.

Avenatti's a ghoul but Swetnick -- unlike anyone else thus far -- has real skin in the game.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:09 pm
That HAS to be code for "rape coeds".

Welp, I stand corrected.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:58 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:09 pm
That HAS to be code for "rape coeds".

Welp, I stand corrected.

The fucking guy went to Grease 2.

In the theater!

WTF?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:58 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:09 pm
That HAS to be code for "rape coeds".

Welp, I stand corrected.

The fucking guy went to Grease 2.

In the theater!

WTF?