Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing

[Grant]

Let's bear in mind that Franken was bounced without much struggle or delay, for miming a sexually inappropriate gesture among a few other things. I certainly didn't hear many Democrats pointing out that some Republicans had done much worse than him.

Playing the "but there's somebody else who is bad" game turns into an Oroborous of tail eating until you finally run out of people on the other side to point at. That takes a while, given the dubious nature of most people in politics.

Franken was also caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, when photographic evidence arose.  I'm of the opinion that if photographic evidence of Kavanaugh arose of him doing anything close to what the accusations of him state, that Republicans would have dropped him like a hot potato as well. 

[rightleft22]

You believe something happened at some point, roughly 36 years ago...

I'm sure rightleft will be crushed when their nomination to the Supreme Court is derailed by accusations of sexual assault.

I do believe Ford. If i'm not mistaken there is evidence of her talking about it with others at or near the time, just not reported to the police?
I don't know - even if she could prove it, at the time or now, I doubt would lead to a conviction. Based on her description of events I wouldn't convict him at the time though I might send him for sensitivity training or some such.
 
My personal opinion is that for most cases if a woman decides for good reasons or bad not to report a incident and over 10 years have passed she should stick to that decision especially if its they have not well documented it.

So this will surprise you but I don't think the accusations disqualifies Kavanaugh. What happening now is pure politics and neither the right or left look good

[Grant]

You believe something happened at some point, roughly 36 years ago...

I'm sure rightleft will be crushed when their nomination to the Supreme Court is derailed by accusations of sexual assault.

I do believe Ford. If i'm not mistaken there is evidence of her talking about it with others at or near the time, just not reported to the police?

Not that I can find.  It appears the first time she talked about it with anyone was when she spoke about it with her therapist in 2012. 

[DonaldD]

I don't know - even if she could prove it, at the time or now, I doubt would lead to a conviction.

He is alleged to have covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream, attempted to remove her clothing, and forced himself upon her.

If we go with the "she could prove it" hypothetical, unless he was a very good swimmer, he would very likely be convicted today.

[rightleft22]

I don't know if you remember the 80's but I would bet that had she came forward nothing would have come out of it. I doubt very much charges would have been lad. It would have been he said she said, and brushed of of teenage thing.

Even today I doubt a conviction without any physical evidence... and she would have had to come forward immediately.

Maybe not right but that was how it was and something the MeToo movement wants to change... But going back 35 years into the past is not the way to get to where they want to be - it just undermines the movement 

If Kavanaugh continued with this behavior eventually something will come out. 

[TheDrake]

This just in, a woman's descendants allege that in 1770 Ben Franklin did indeed tug upon her petticoats in a wanton manner most unseemly. They do now agitate that Franklin's name should be stricken from all copies of the Constitution, and that his likeness in portraiture be removed at once from the University of Pennsylvania.

[DonaldD]

rightleft, you wrote "at the time or now" - I thought you were suggesting that if (as one option) this had occurred in the present, it would still not be prosecuted/he would likely not be convicted.  Is that not you meant?

[rightleft22]

Yes Sadly - I suspect that today - if two non-public teenagers - evolved in the same incident as described, with no eye witness or physical evidence - Charges would not be laid

Just my opinion. One of the reasons so many girls don't come forward

[D.W.]

Here we are.  Predator until accusation withdrawal, yet innocent until proven guilty.

Even if you could get charges filed, the odds of a conviction are slight. 

[DonaldD]

with no eye witness or physical evidence

You seem to be changing the hypothetical - you also wrote "even if she could prove it"

[rightleft22]

sorry I suck

If she could prove it then today - we would have a conviction

In 1980's 50/50 - just teenagers having fun that got out of hand... it was the way it was

[TheDrake]

You know, I am wondering if I could reasonably testify to very much I saw in college 26 years ago. A blank slate is a dangerous thing. I certainly couldn't relate with any certainty who was at which particular party. I could name people I had been to parties with, and antics that went on but not who exactly did what.

I only had one incident really stand out in my mind. I wound up picked up for public intoxication, it was certainly the only time I had been to jail. It was highly formative in terms of negative reinforcement, and I dwelled on it often and somewhat continuously to this day. I know vaguely some of the people who were there because it was a party involving some fellow ROTC cadets. I couldn't name even one with absolute certainty. If somebody suggested somebody however, I might suddenly start remembering they were there. Could I pick out the host of the party? Not without prompting. And even then, I was intoxicated (thus the PI). Memory isn't the best.

What I remember most was how I felt. My frustration, fear, anger, shame, and more. I remember the aftermath vividly the next day. But that evening? I couldn't tell you the kind of music playing, the rough location of the party, the time I left. About the only thing I can say is the street I was crossing at the time I was spotted and detained. Although I'd still have to look the name up, because I'm not even positive about that.

There were probably a couple of other events that I could pull together some details from, but my point is this - could I ever trust it to make an accusation against any of those people? Could anyone ever believe me without any corroboration whatsoever? Especially if I had been seeing one classmate's name and photo splashed on every news site for a month or more?

[Grant]

sorry I suck

If she could prove it then today - we would have a conviction

In 1980's 50/50 - just teenagers having fun that got out of hand... it was the way it was

I'm unsure if this is the actual case.  I understand this is widely perceived, but I'm unsure if it's true. 

According to the report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data, The clearance rate for rape cases (which seems to include attempted rape) was 51.1% in 1995, and was 33.6% for rape and 37.7% for sexual assault in 2017.  This would seem to indicate that there was a better chance at conviction in a rape case in 1995 then in 2017. 

The attempts to extrapolate total number of sexual assault/rape victims from the numbers reported seems a bit like voodoo to me, but I'm not a statistician.  Apparently the rate of sexual assaults reported to police have run between 25% to 60% between 1995 and 2010.  The number for 2016 is 22.1%.  Today the rate is basically close to what it was back in 1995. 

Reasons given for not reporting sexual assault to the police have shifted over the years.  Between 94 and 98 the percentage who did not report because they believed the police could not or would not help was 8%.  In 2010 that number was 15%.  I imagine the percentage is even higher today.  The top reasons that sexual assault was not reported to the police by females was fear of reprisal, which has also grown, from 17% to 20%, and "other", which is at 30% in 2010.  Fear of reprisal and "other" covers 50% of reasons that sexual assault was not reported in 2010. 

There IS a great shifting of perception by women that the police cannot or would not help.  But I can't really find data that supports this.  I know there is a lot of anecdotal stuff out there, but I personally try to base my views off the data, rather than stories.  This I why I don't believe that illegal aliens are a huge crime problem, despite all the anecdotal bs that gets thrown out about them. 

The only thing that seems to bear on the subject is that in the past, law enforcement did indeed have a better clearance rate for sexual assault cases. 

[DonaldD]

The Drake, while you were in the cell, drunk, if a man pressed you to the floor, clamped his hand over your mouth so you couldn't scream, then attempted to forcefully remove your clothing, do you think you would remember that?

And of course, that was all when you were so drunk that you were arrested and placed in a drunk tank - Ford is not claiming she had been that far into her cups.

[TheDrake]

I think a lot of people can remember a lot of things. I don't think she had a bad dream, but can she be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh and not the other guy that was the aggressor? Let's not forget that based on her therapists notes, she wasn't even sure if there were 2 or 4 men in the room.

[TheDrake]

And if memory were so reliable - wouldn't she remember what house she was in? Who invited her to the party? What year it was? You would think so. Why is it that her memory is so selective about this traumatic event that the only detail she can remember is his name with perfect clarity? I'm not saying she is wrong, I'm just saying that memory is unreliable. That's why James Comey wrote his contemporaneous notes on interactions with Trump as soon as possible.

I think you know the studies, Donald, that detail the fallibility of memory - you're a pretty educated dude.

To say nothing of the fact that as it seems, these details came out during therapy. It's not unheard of that a therapist can introduce memories in the process of trying to help someone.

Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.

The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom

But if you want to be dismissive of science as well as my personal story, knock yourself out.

[rightleft22]

According to the report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Grant do they have data for assault and rape charges involving teenagers?

[Grant]

According to the report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Grant do they have data for assault and rape charges involving teenagers?

I'M NOT YOUR DATA HOUND, RL!  I HAVE A JOB!

But since you asked nicely:  They don't have a specific report on teenagers.  They do have a specific report on college aged females.  They have basic information on teenagers, like what percentage of sexual assault reports are from teens.  I don't really know where the raw data is. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

[Crunch]

The Drake, while you were in the cell, drunk, if a man pressed you to the floor, clamped his hand over your mouth so you couldn't scream, then attempted to forcefully remove your clothing, do you think you would remember that?

And of course, that was all when you were so drunk that you were arrested and placed in a drunk tank - Ford is not claiming she had been that far into her cups.

I would think that the multiple named eyewitnesses would remember.

If Drake said this happened and every single person, from guards to other arrestees and including his best friend, that he said saw it happen denied it ever happened, and Drake could not tell you when he was arrested, what jail he was taken to, nor when he was released, would you believe it happened?

Ford is claiming this. And it’s as obvious a lie as it appears to be.

Ramirez is refusing to testify.  Ford is doing everything she can to avoid it while continuing to delay proceedings. We all know why, lying in semi anonymous letters and media interviews has no penalty. Lying to Congress does.

[DonaldD]

To say nothing of the fact that as it seems, these details came out during therapy.

Where did Ford ever suggest this was a recovered memory?  All of her statements have been to the effect that this is a memory that has haunted her since it initially (allegedly) occurred. Her exact words describing the immediate and mid-term effects of the alleged attack were that the attack "derailed me substantially for four or five years" following it and caused her lesser degrees of anxiety even year later. She even talked about debating whether to tell anybody at the time, and whether "I look like someone just attacked me?"

but can she be absolutely sure it was Kavanaugh and not the other guy that was the aggressor?

Yes, she can, since they were both in her immediate social network. It would actually be far more surprising if she were to mix the two people up.

I do suggest before you get all condescending again, that you would at least make an effort to get Ford's claims correct.  Feel free to disbelieve her, but there is no excuse to have misrepresented her statements so thoroughly. Her statements in no way suggest these were recovered memories.

[Pete at Home]

Ah. Could Ford theoretically waive confidentiality and have the therapist produce the timely records?  Except those probably would not mention the perp’s name.

[Crunch]

Ah. Could Ford theoretically waive confidentiality and have the therapist produce the timely records?  Except those probably would not mention the perp’s name.

Therapist notes have already been made available. They do not mention Kavanaugh. They also contradict details of Ford’s current story.

[Crunch]

Yes Sadly - I suspect that today - if two non-public teenagers - evolved in the same incident as described, with no eye witness or physical evidence - Charges would not be laid

Just my opinion. One of the reasons so many girls don't come forward

Let’s ask the Duke Lacrosse team about that.

[rightleft22]

Let’s ask the Duke Lacrosse team about that.

different situation - I'm talking about two teenagers, unknown to the public, no famous or rich parents, no psychical evidence, no witness... I still bet that in most cases charges would be filed or that the girl would come forward to file them. 
 
Its not right but happens and in the 1980's the likely hood of charges... sorry. Its why there is a movement to change it but we aren't even close. Ask the woman around you if they experienced unwanted attention and groping... and why they didn't say anything about it.
 
I think its a mistake for the movement to bring up events such as this one from the past unless its to show why we need to change things now. The idea of convicting or defining someone for something that happened 35 years ago that can't be proven only harms the movement for change.

But this isn't about that. I’m not defending or convicting Kavanaugh. Maybe Kavanaugh is a pig, maybe he likes to try and grab woman by their Pu, maybe sometimes he gets away with it. I don’t think anyone is going to be able to prove it one way or the other.
The GOP has won, they get to decided and if they don’t choose Kavanaugh they will choose another like him. (I don’t think the Democrats are going to win the house or senate) and I don’t think we really care about what really happened 35 years ago only about how it suites our agenda.

[cherrypoptart]

I wonder if it was just bad luck that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted and harassed only young women who grew up to become radical left wing activists or if it's more like just a lucky coincidence for the Democrats. Or perhaps his behavior toward them is what caused them to become radical leftists.

[NobleHunter]

Or that anyone he assaulted who became a radical right wing activist got a different answer on the cost-benefit analysis to come forward or not.

[TheDrake]

The most bizarre thing yet is that apparently Kavanaugh kept a calendar for 36 years.

[TheDeamon]

The most bizarre thing yet is that apparently Kavanaugh kept a calendar for 36 years.

Not too bizarre all things considered, there are Mormons who can account for practically every day of their life since they learned how to write.

[DonaldD]

Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact that he was young and a binge drinker, and that he was unaware of how badly he may have "misbehaved" while so far under the influence, all while showing sensitivity to the women who at least convincingly seem to believe that he mistreated them.

Now, as every additional claim is made, his perceived honesty takes a hit.  It's not the actions of a drunk 17 year old, 30 odd years ago, that is likely to cause him his biggest challenge; it is the perception that he is being dishonest today, and that he could be perceived as consciously attacking people who he may have already victimized while he was a minor and less than aware of his own actions.

[Fenring]

Or that anyone he assaulted who became a radical right wing activist got a different answer on the cost-benefit analysis to come forward or not.

A different answer...from whom?

[NobleHunter]

Or that anyone he assaulted who became a radical right wing activist got a different answer on the cost-benefit analysis to come forward or not.

A different answer...from whom?

From themselves.

[cherrypoptart]

DonaldD

"Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact..."

Unless none of it is true. Then what would he be better off doing?

Just for the record I agree with Crunch that they are flat out lying. Can't prove it. Don't know it for sure. Could be wrong. But women have accused men of worse for reasons far less.

[TheDrake]

I don't believe they are fabricating stories deliberately. It's a wildly small pool of people for that - there are only 500 students enrolled over all four years (today, anyway). Half or more of them would be men. Many of them would not have had any interactions.

[DonaldD]

cherrypoptart, without addressing any of the women's claims, Kavanaugh seems to have been involved in drinking to excess across a number of years.  This is not exactly unusual behaviour for young men in the USA.  But making categorical claims about one's own activities while binge drinking, and seemingly binge drinking over a number of years, is just foolish.  To then claim that other people's interpretation of one's actions are "ridiculous" and disparaging those people for making the claims - well, that shows at best a complete lack of self awareness. 

Anyway, the "fact" he should have copped to was of drinking wildly to excess in his youth, while being completely inexperienced with both alcohol and his maturing human body.  it was not to any particular activity.

[TheDeamon]

DonaldD

"Kavanagh would have been better off just copping to the idea/fact..."

Unless none of it is true. Then what would he be better off doing?

Just for the record I agree with Crunch that they are flat out lying. Can't prove it. Don't know it for sure. Could be wrong. But women have accused men of worse for reasons far less.

Don't  know about "flat out lying" but I will certainly give a greater than zero chance of the allegation being more motivated by politics than by any other consideration, including reality itself.

Also I am mindful of the psychology studies involving 9/11 and tracking (certain) people's recounting of events over the intervening  years. Memory is a very slippery thing, and not as fixed and unchanging as some would like to believe.

For all I know, the accusers memories may have been particularly vivid fantasies/nightmares they experienced during that time frame and the lines have become blurred between the two over time. An alternate more benign version may be that the event or something like it may have happened, but involved different people, and the memory of it has morphed over the intervening years for whatever reason.

That date rape drugs and overly intoxicated states also tends to result in "dream like recall" of events just further confuses things when it comes to separation of dreams from reality even for the perfectly sane.

Edit: Would rather not see this morph into discussions about "rape fantasies" and their prevalence or lack thereof, but it is something to be considered as well.

[NobleHunter]

I think the best reason for Kavanaugh to react with more humility and respect for the accusers is that he wouldn't sound like every other man caught out committing sexual assault. Innocent or not, he followed the script almost to the letter and his supporters have been chiming in on cue.

[Fenring]

I think the best reason for Kavanaugh to react with more humility and respect for the accusers is that he wouldn't sound like every other man caught out committing sexual assault. Innocent or not, he followed the script almost to the letter and his supporters have been chiming in on cue.

That sounds like a Kafkatrap to me. There is no doubt a certain response dictated by legal expertise that all people are instructed to follow, innocent or not. The "if you're innocent then why deny everything like a guilty person" answer has been referred to as naive and dangerous in my recollection. Such responses to accusations seem to me to be indicative of something in American culture and very little to do with any particular individual in it.

Maybe if there were positive, redemptive rewards for admitting to wrongdoing, rather than obvious punitive public vengeance, we wouldn't see this type of artificial response that requires defensive measures to be taken regardless of whether you're guilty or not. The public claims it wants confession, but it only actually encourages doubling down on denying everything.

[Seriati]

Well I agree there was a script.  I wonder now if the Avenatti's bizarre announcement of news in 48 hours, wasn't because another "claim" backed out at the last moment and they needed something to bridge the gap.  Any one read the latest claim?

The person making it seems to claim that she went to multiple parties where there was an active rape room ongoing, to which she eventually fell victim.  I'm sorry, what?  She went to multiple parties where a deliberate and repeated practice of gang rape was occurring, of which she was aware, and she kept going?  Any really want to defend that as plausible?  There is zero chance this occurred without dozens of witnesses and victims.

"Victim" number 2's best recollection is that she saw a penis and she saw Kavanaugh adjusting his pants, but she wasn't sure it was his penis, and she was falling down drunk at the time.

Victim number 1, apparently, never mentioned anything about the events until 30 years later, and then has sequentially filled in more details (and more specific details) over time.  Her husbands confirmation was that she mentioned an assault when they got married and only gave more details later.  Is a coincidence that as she filled in more details she attached the most prominent person that fit the basic memory?  If you remember an attack from a dark haired boy at a specific school, and 30 years later you get access to pictures of a famous one from that school, does it influence that memory?  Certainly could.

What weight do I give to the "multiple" accounts.  literally none.  This "train" if you'll forgive the expression was deliberately organized by the Dems, and I'd be surprised if they don't have at least one more, this time one that might actually sound credible - which is a tactic to make the uncredible accounts that have come before seem more realistic.

Fact is NO ONE in the public has heard from Ford, why does anyone have an opinion on her credibility?

[Seriati]

I'm also willing to speculate that the only reason Kavanaugh didn't file slander charges against Ford already is that doing so would have given her an excuse to refuse to testify.  If his nomination doesn't go forward, I'd hope he'd file charges against each of the accusers and their attorneys forcing them to prove their claims.

[Wayward Son]

I'm also willing to speculate that the only reason Kavanaugh didn't file slander charges against Ford already is that doing so would have given her an excuse to refuse to testify.  If his nomination doesn't go forward, I'd hope he'd file charges against each of the accusers and their attorneys forcing them to prove their claims.

Good luck with that, Seriati. 

Can you imagine it?  Ford testifies under oath that, according to her best recollection, Kavanaugh did it.  She says so with complete certainty.

And what does Kavanaugh's side say?  "You're memory is faulty."  And she says, "No, it isn't.  I was there.  I remember what I remember."

Maybe Kavanaugh's attorneys could convince a jury that her memories were faulty.  But how can they prove that she should believe they were faulty?  If she honestly believes in what she remembers (and from the little I've heard about this, she most certainly does), how can you charge her with slander?  No men reas.

If the jury convicted her, then anyone who mis-remembered something would be liable of slander.  Or perjury, for that matter.  Which means every government official who testified "to the best of my recollections" would be liable to go to jail.

As I said, good luck with that. 

[Seriati]

It's not that hard to show the way the claims are made has caused damage to his reputation.  False accusations of crimes are routinely the basis of slander actions.

He doesn't have to prove he didn't do it.  Her defense, is to assert that the statements are true - which would require proof.  In any event, it's almost impossible to believe it wouldn't go to trial, especially now with the Avenatti clown show getting involved.

[Seriati]

Interesting, the polygraph test Ford passed didn't involve any direct questions about the assault.  It only asked about a written statement that was prepared with her lawyer.  Anyone have any experience on this?  That seems highly unusual to me, reviewers have noted that multiple baseline and surprise questions should have been asked in order to establish an evaluation framework.  Personally, I find the indirect way it was conducted as something designed to make it easier to pass.

[Fenring]

Which means every government official who testified "to the best of my recollections" would be liable to go to jail.

Oh, good. When can we begin this program? 

[TheDrake]

So - yeah, you as the plaintiff do have to prove the statement is false. The burden is on K.

You can't sue someone for slander and force them to prove the statement is true. Her lack of specificity makes it extremely hard to prove false.

It would get dismissed immediately.

[Seriati]

Here's a simple to understand description of this works.  It's nuanced but it simple.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html

So couple of points, statements in judicial proceedings are privileged.  That is why you don't get defamation suits off of them.

Second, truth is a defense.  There is no defense that says, "well it could be true, and they can't prove otherwise."

[NobleHunter]

That sounds like a Kafkatrap to me. There is no doubt a certain response dictated by legal expertise that all people are instructed to follow, innocent or not. The "if you're innocent then why deny everything like a guilty person" answer has been referred to as naive and dangerous in my recollection. Such responses to accusations seem to me to be indicative of something in American culture and very little to do with any particular individual in it.

Maybe if there were positive, redemptive rewards for admitting to wrongdoing, rather than obvious punitive public vengeance, we wouldn't see this type of artificial response that requires defensive measures to be taken regardless of whether you're guilty or not. The public claims it wants confession, but it only actually encourages doubling down on denying everything.

I'm not saying he should admit wrongdoing, just demonstrate some awareness of the challenges facing women who aren't able to make timely accusations.

Seriati, the defense would be that Ford believes the statements are true. Assuming a judge counts as a public figure (and I think someone being nominated for the SC would), Kavanaugh would have to prove intentional or reckless lying.

[Seriati]

That's a fair point NobleHunter.  That in the context of him being a public figure he'd have to prove some form of malice.  I think he'd have a fair shot of that in this context, where the political ramifications are almost certainly the paramount reason for coming forward.

I note that none of these accusers have filed charges as of yet.  That technical difference means they can't be convicted by the state independently.  One dirty trick after another.

Interested to see if the hearing goes off tomorrow.  I'm not as skeptical as others, but I'm struck that I've still never seen Ford or heard her voice.  The media insisted in prior cases on hearing from the victims and forcing them to make accounts (more true when they wanted to discredit people accusing Democrats, but generally true in all cases).  Yet here, silence is allowed.  It's pretty clear there is a concerted effort not to provide any information that could be used to question her credibility.

[D.W.]

While this COULD be total fabrication by those willing to lie for their political motives I find it interesting how casually dismissed the possibility of one line of thinking:

I had no faith that I could "prove" his guilt at the time, and having done so, that any significant punishment would have occurred.  I opted to move past this this and try to get on with my life.  While it always stuck with me, railing against him would serve no purpose.  Eventually I did indeed move on and gave my attacker/harasser/abuser as little thought as possible.  Now however, this person is being considered for a position of power.  One which the facade of morality and good judgement is a part if not a requirement.  The idea of this monster, as I still view him as such, being in a position of (this much) power over others sickens me.  I am willing to face the obvious slings and excuses of those who will doubtlessly defend them in an attempt to prevent that.


I'm sure few if any articulate the thought process in such a way, but it seems perfectly plausible to me.  That this possibility seems to occur to so few always perplexes me.  "Why not come forward sooner?"  "Why not press charges?"  "The timing means it's OBVIOUSLY a lie..." and so on.  I tend to lean towards what I see as the far more logical and likely result.

Sure they may (all) be liars.  But it's equally as plausible to me, and probably more so, that they are not, are remembering clearly and are attempting to do a public service to at least warn people that the face being presented is not representative of the person behind it.

[Seriati]

D.W. far from ignoring that perspective, that's literally the only reason this is being treated seriously at all.  There is no evidence, we all know there isn't going to be any evidence, no proof of guilt or innocence.  This is literally going to come down to a question of whether an accusation that CAN'T be proven is enough.

The only, and I mean the only, reason we're even considering the possibility that it could be is out of empathy for the victim.   And we're only getting there by throwing away our entire set of principals that requires we treat people as innocent until proven guilty.  And BS on this being an interview, people are ruining this man's life and they DON'T REALLY CARE about whether or not the claims are true.

[TheDrake]

All the sources I can find state pretty much the same thing, this one states it the most clearly. Emphasis mine.

What Do You Have To Prove?
There are two things you have to prove to be true in order to win a case of defamation of character in the court of law. First of all, you have to prove without a doubt that what was said or written about you is not true. Once you have proved that the statement is, in fact, false you have to prove that the other person said the false statement with the intent of causing you some form of harm.

source