Home » Memory and witnesses/victims

Comments

Memory and witnesses/victims — 34 Comments

  1. neo: Well said.

    Most people who know me would say I have an excellent memory. From what I can tell, I do — relative to most people.

    However, I kept journals for over thirty years and when I later reread them I discovered how often my memories diverged, sometimes in important ways, from what I originally wrote.

  2. I again say…the accuser is a professor who now lives in California…even from the Bay Area…which is a notorious liberal stronghold. She has donated to the Democrat party and to various liberal causes. And she doesn’t remember the location and time of the incident? How convenient for her (no one can check her “memory” of when and where “it happened”). And I’ve heard that it caused problems with her marriage…seems like she COULD have remembered “the incident” if it was that important to her.

    She’s lying for political purposes.

  3. As a clinical psych expert, she would have more knowledge than most as to how best beat a polygraph test.

  4. ” It may not have happened at all.
    It may not have happened in that particular way.
    It may have happened, but the perpetrator was someone else.

    Yes: the second item seems to me to be a particularly relevant and rational possibility; seeing as how extremely contorted her relation of the supposed event became in order to imply the greatest possible damage; and, how wildly subjective was her emphasis on the presumed trajectory of this putative event.

    Given the turgid, and overwrought language which she used to imply a type of violation not in evidence even on her own accounting, it seems likely that if some kind of encounter did take place, it amounted to less than meets even a dispassionately reading eye.

    Or she could have dreamed most of it.

  5. Mandela Effect…

    Mandela hung flaming necklaces with care. Or perhaps a related or sympathetic subordinate.

  6. Believing the dream.

    I think I have mentioned a morally innocuous dream/reality confusion I witnessed once before. I’ll relate it again as best I can recollect it, as it may be relevant.

    An older business friend of mine, financially successful sales engineer, electronics hobbyist, father of 5 and an Army Air Corps fighter pilot (Thunderbolts) commissioned too late to be sent overseas; had this to say to me one day, when we were talking about nothing in particular.

    He remarked that when he went to school they had terrazzo floors and staircases, and that the square brown tiles on the stairs became somewhat slick when cleaned and waxed.

    I told him that 30 and more years later the floors in my school were just like that, on the staircases at least. The stairs being broad and wide and relatively shallow.

    He said, “You know what I did? I figured out how that if I got a head start, I could skid down those shallow stairs almost like I was skiing down a slope”

    I said, “Oh you could? Well no you didn’t. Because I have that memory too”

    He said “You could do it too?” and I said “No, I don’t think so, but I seemed to until recently”

    He said, “What do you mean”? and I told him that on reflection, I didn’t think it was really possible (kind of like a seaman sailing down a ladder between decks face forward, but feet skimming and no hands sliding along the chains) because your shoe heels would get in the way, and the stairs could not be both steep and shallow enough at the same moment, in order to accomplish it. And, for another reason too.”

    “What’s that?”

    “I just woke up from having that same type of dream a couple weeks ago, and it startled me that I was dreaming something that seemed a kind of memory of my schooldays. And unless my junior high school really did have stairs so incredibly made, it must have been a dream all along.”

    And, as we tried to carefully think through the mechanics of this bit of juvenile athleticism, it came to seem to us both, that it must have originated in a dream.

    Probably.

  7. I was thinking of this last night and had a few conjectures that I want to put out before I read anything today, because part of the fun of internet commenting is (a) finding out other people agree with you (or not); and (b) maybe you thought of it first.

    I love murder mysteries, especially complex ones, and I started thinking about why Feinlein waited so long and revealed her story so piece-meal, and now have a hypothesis that could serve as the basis of a TV detective flick.

    Let’s first stipulate that Ford told her story in 2012 as a prophylactic against Romney nominating Kavanaugh, then didn’t need it; after that, it was shelved because Hillary was going to be Obama’s third term.
    Let’s also assume that Ford really, really wants to eliminate Kavanaugh from the Supreme court, and doesn’t mind risking her reputation to do so.
    Let’s even allow that something happened that Ford remembers as involving Kavanaugh — although there are multiple ways to conflate and confuse memories that old, let’s give her some benefit of sincerity.

    Trump announces Kavanaugh’s nomination July 9. Even though his name was on the short list, nothing was definite until then.

    Ford needs to connect with the Dems to accomplish her goal, and the media has always been a good route, so she shops her story to the Washington Post in early July (no date that I’ve seen) but they don’t bite (I wonder why, given the things the MSM has printed with as little corroboration — probably libel concerns). Next best, she goes through the now-known channels to reach Feinstein in late July.

    The Dems are sure they can use the story, but how to get maximum value from it?
    (Does anyone seriously believe Feinstein didn’t share this juicy plum with anyone at all? She had a team on it from the beginning, guaranteed.)

    Now, however, the story is stale. It has to be refurbished. They need time to do that, so the Dems stall the hearings with complaints about documents that they don’t need, and no one else ever asked for.

    We don’t have the timeline for these actions, but it all takes place sometime before last Wednesday, Sept 12; possibly before she makes that first phone call.

    Ford gets a lawyer, obtains her therapist’s notes, takes the polygraph test (not in an official legal setting, so the ex-FBI-agent is just an “expert witness” like any other specialist), prepares her testimony.

    Now, how to handle the reveal?

    Not in Committee – not public enough (they need the Media to do the grunt work on dissemination, and although the Post would gladly print the story with that hook – just as with the dossier – it would still take time to set up the leaks, because — contra Spartacus — it could not be openly produced without real repercussions).

    Not in the televised hearings – sandbagging Kavanaugh was probably tempting, but (a) people are already tired of the circus chaos; (b) Feinstein would have to answer questions she couldn’t control; (c) he would have too much opportunity to rebut the accusations, and he is very competent and credible.

    Not via a law enforcement agency that would properly handle it, such as in the jurisdiction where the “assault” allegedly happened; too slow, too uncertain, especially if the account is highly embellished or outright fabricated.
    (The police in general are doing a pretty good job of exposing fake hate crimes, but a cold case is a dice roll for all sides.)

    Time is wasting and the vote is coming up; it has to come out NOW or it’s no good at all.

    So Feinlein does the “teaser” with the anonymous, redacted letter. She handles it oh-so-sensitively, but responsibly, pushing it to the “authorities” to deal with.
    (The FBI doesn’t have any mandate for this kind of crime, and properly didn’t investigate, but they get virtue points for handing it over and none of the negative consequences of a genuine, probably exonerating, investigation.)

    Why not just publish the full letter, with the name of the accuser redacted? It’s a shocking story, after all, and that’s what’s needed to seal the deal.

    BUT they have learned from the past, so let’s review some prior cases. (I omit Bill Clinton, because his story is too dissimilar, too “locked in” to partisan narratives, and too idiosyncratic.)

    In 1991, they tried to eliminate Clarence Thomas with allegations of sexual misconduct, and it didn’t work.
    Problems: Hill was not very credible, because of the delay and her own behavior; the alleged incidents, mostly verbal, were not shocking; her sole witness was not believed; Thomas had too many supporters; the partisan gridlock was not too strong; and the charges (most probably) were false to start with.

    But, in 2017, they set out to eliminate Roy Moore the same way, and it DID work. These were the differences: the original accuser was reasonably credible (despite the forgery in the yearbook); the age difference made the accusations (still well short of assault or rape) more shocking; there were additional accusers and some witnesses, so it was believable that Moore dated younger women, possibly with minor physical contact; he had essentially NO supporters on his own side (none with any clout; blog pundits don’t count, sad to say, even the most rational and principled of them); the partisan split after 2016 was much more divisive, and cut across actual party lines because of Trump; and he actually did date younger women before marriage (although no complaints post-date the wedding).

    So, Ford’s story (true or not) is their ace in the hole, not their first card: they don’t want to start with it, or have it be the sole complaint because it’s too vulnerable to rebuttal. They need more accusers and witnesses, but they can’t exactly put an ad in the paper (heh) – so they do the next best thing.

    Feinstein leaks the letter with no detail, or names because she wants to see what other people come up with: they want speculation to start about other parties, other girls, other accusations that might have swirled around in the community, but never come to the surface.

    (Remember they know that Kavanaugh has been a public figure for decades, has passed FBI background and security checks, has plenty of political enemies, and yet no accusations have ever surfaced, so any stories are going to be old, unprovable, and — up to now — not something the “victims” want to be associated with.)

    Now, however, the Dems also have the #MeToo lesson to work from: accusations add up, especially when they are true – or at least probable. People pile on once a celebrity loses the initial battle, and they are confident that they won’t suffer from coming forward. You just have to get the ball rolling.

    Ford’s story is going to be the bait, and they use what they get by trolling a net for more. So, what do they get in their net?
    (Yeah, I’m mixing my metaphors; so sue me.)

    One story about Kavanaugh and a friend locking a girl in a room, from which she escapes – a prank that NO ONE bought into as the substance of a letter so important that Feinstein had to send it to the FBI (two months late, but whatever).

    NOBODY is coming out with a bombshell story. No one is going to roll the snowball for them.

    So, they have to release the entire letter with its shocking account of drunken, rough groping and (possibly) attempted rape, with all the deficiencies that have been noted so far.*
    (Okay, that sounds cynical, but I’m writing a mystery here, not an Atlantic essay.)**

    Still no one bites. Instead, they get a letters and articles from nearly 200 women putting their names out as positive character witnesses — not “Me Too” stories at all.
    Their own counter-letter, from the anonymous 200 women who didn’t even know Kavanaugh but just attended Ford’s school sometime in the last twenty years, doesn’t budge the needle.

    They need more time, so Feinstein wants to delay the vote, delay hearing from Ford and Kavanaugh, anything to allow them to locate someone who will start the ball rolling.***

    But I predict they won’t find another story — because nothing ever happened to create one. Kavanaugh didn’t ever do anything to anyone, and all his friends can testify to that (and have).

    Now we will see if they make one up.

    !! Stay tuned for the next installment of this gripping detective serial !!

    * * *
    *It is possible that Ford didn’t remember how she got to the party or how she got home because it occurred (if at all) in her own house.

    **Let me insert the obligatory “no offense to real victims, rape is heinous and must be treated sensitively, sorry if you are offended” caveat, which I sincerely believe,— but Ford is responsible for the way she told the story, and she knows enough psychology to know what readers will respond to.

    ***I still want to know how Ronan Farrow so quickly got the names for Ford and Judge that, supposedly, even the FBI didn’t have.

  8. On the other hand: Memories seemingly like a dream, but true.

    I did show up for an economics final after missing probably the last third of the course, only to have the professor stare at me in disbelief. Offered to give me a “B” if I got a B. I think 90-92 was still only a B. What did I expect, an “A”?

    Also, with working at the same time, had such a fractured class schedule (mornings, afternoons and evenings) that half comatose I suppose, I walked into the right classroom, at the right time, on the wrong day, early on in the semester to find some strange professor lecturing away. Happened at least twice.

    Kind of nightmare too, but it was real.

  9. PS Wikipedia says — at this moment in time — that “During the confirmation process, Kavanaugh was accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford while they were both in high school. ”

    NOT that the letter was first mentioned AFTER the hearings concluded.

    Technically true, but certainly misleading and incomplete.
    Typical spin.

  10. DNW, are you channelling me?

    I once showed up at an 8 am class and sat through half of it wondering why we had a sub that day, and then why so many new people were in the room, until I realized there were two sections of the same course, in identically-situated rooms, but on different floors.

    And I often dreamed (and knew it was a dream) of showing up in a class on exam day after never having been there before.

    And other assorted “archetypes” I’m sure; someone would have to get out the Dream Books for the rest of them.

  11. huxley on September 18, 2018 at 1:26 pm at 1:26 pm said:

    However, I kept journals for over thirty years and when I later reread them I discovered how often my memories diverged, sometimes in important ways, from what I originally wrote.
    * * *
    I heard or read a story by Isaac Asimov (IIRC – heh) relating that he had told the story of meeting his second wife for thirty years, but when writing his autobiography, he checked his journals – and he had been telling it wrong the whole time.

    And don’t get me started on Granny and the Aunts arguing about when and what was done by who – totally repetitive disputes that were never resolved in my lifetime.

  12. Reading about the frequently inaccuracy of memory reminded me of this article; “Judge Kavanaugh and the left’s revenge”

    Specifically;

    “The first episode of Alfred Hitchcock’s TV series was titled “Revenge.” The story opens with Carl and Elsa Spann, a recently married couple who move into a trailer by the sea. Elsa has suffered a nervous breakdown, the seaside her therapy.

    Carl heads out for his first day at work, and Elsa is baking a cake to surprise her husband. But when Carl gets home, he finds a smoke-filled trailer; a burning cake; and his wife beaten and assaulted, in a catatonic state. The police have no leads on the assailant, and Carl’s frustration and anger build.

    The next day, Carl takes Elsa away. They’re driving through town when Elsa points to a man walking on the sidewalk.

    “There he is! That’s him!”

    Carl parks and follows the man to his room, where he bludgeons the stranger to death. He goes back to the car and drives away. Then Elsa points to another man: “There he is! That’s him!” The scene closes on Carl’s shocked expression as he realizes what he’s done.”

    Reportedly, even recent eyewitness accounts are unreliable.

    What a master was Hitchcock, his equal has yet to appear.

  13. Townhall has almost nothing on their pages except Kavanaugh, so you can check it out yourself, but Chairman Grassley makes this important point —

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/09/18/brett-kavanaughs-accuser-isnt-answering-phone-calls-from-chuck-grassley-to-testify-about-her-accusations-n2520092?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky2

    “We still haven’t heard from Dr. Ford, so do they want to have the hearing or not?” Grassley said during an interview with Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday morning. “We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours, three or four times by email and we have not heard from them. It kind of raises the question do they want to come to the public hearing or not? The reason we’re having the public hearing is obviously, well number one, accusations like this deserve consideration and looking into and that’s what the purpose of the hearing is. We wouldn’t be having the hearing if Dr. Ford told the Washington Post and other people publicly she wanted to testify.”

    “We’re delaying the vote strictly to get all the facts out on the table,” he continued.

  14. Specifically on topic for this post

    (Guy links to David BTW)

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/09/18/no-one-accusers-uncorroborated-memory-is-not-sufficient-to-derail-a-supreme-court-nomination-n2519834?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky3

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-corroboration-necessary-memory-unreliable/

    * * *
    Prager’s bolded statement is now questionable, although many people recite it in other places, but his main contention is the discrepancy between the charge and the totality of Kavanaugh’s life.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2018/09/18/the-charges-against-judge-kavanaugh-should-be-ignored-n2519986?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky1

    “In sum, I am not interested in whether Mrs. Ford, an anti-Trump activist, is telling the truth. Because even if true, what happened to her was clearly wrong, but it tells us nothing about Brett Kavanaugh since the age of 17. But for the record, I don’t believe her story. Aside from too many missing details — most women remember virtually everything about the circumstances of a sexual assault no matter how long ago — few men do what she charges Kavanaugh with having done only one time. And no other woman has ever charged him with any sexual misconduct.”

  15. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations/

    “The Huffington Post wrote an article on a group of alumnae of Ford’s high school — Holton-Arms, a private girls’ school in Bethesda — who are circulating a letter in support of Ford. They do not corroborate Ford’s story about Kavanaugh, but they say they believe her, writing that her story was “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton.”

    That things like what is described in Ford’s letter “happened all the time” is, I’m sure, true. That it’s “all too consistent with stories” that people heard and their lived experience is also, I’m sure, true. But the questions is whether Brett Kavanaugh did something like this. Evidence that stuff like what he’s accused of happened to many people, or that prep-school guys like him always get away with things like this, is not evidence against Brett Kavanaugh. It is more like a cultural script in search of players to be cast in their respective roles later.

    Evidence may yet be presented that incriminates Kavanaugh, and it may shift this conversation away from people generalizing from their own experiences. But until then, it is a dangerous thing to proceed toward a judgment, even a political judgment, based on prejudices such as “this thing happens all the time” and “it’s consistent with stories we know.” The sensation of finding archetypal victimizers and victims is what made false stories about Duke’s lacrosse players and the University of Virginia’s fraternity brothers go viral across the culture.”

    * * *
    And the continuation of FAKE rape stories will make prosecuting REAL ones much, much harder.

  16. Glad i mention this in the OTHER thread…
    No mention? hat tip?
    povre moi and Nikolai Yezhov
    erased by higher powers

    which is why i dont bother
    its like telling the boss this great idea
    they forget
    then have the same idea and get credit

    at least when the boss does it, your still getting paid…

  17. Artfldgr on September 17, 2018 at 7:26 pm at 7:26 pm said:

    If he is not guilty, then its outright lying, or its either a conflated memory or a manufactured memory.

    There is GREAT pressure in our country in the generations after mine, to somehow NOT come from a decent family, or not have some abuse on you as most others claim and so, have no connection to contemporaries… To sit around while others told their tales and punching their ticket to sing the blues, and have decent parents, never be molested, etc… is a horror unexplored in film (yet)

    Artfldgr on September 17, 2018 at 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm said:
    And a Hatch spokesperson told ABC News of Kavanaugh: ‘He told Senator Hatch he was not at a party like the one she describes, and that Dr. Ford, who acknowledged to the Washington Post that she ‘did not remember some key details of the incident,’ may be mistaking him for someone else.’ Daily Mail

    you can go back many years and i have talked already about false memories, specifically using the day care case… which by the time they were done, made the salem witch trials seem pale (except for the deaths which are technically not part of the trial, but the result of the trial)…

    but the point isnt so much that this is a false memory
    the point is that if this is a false memory
    how did they change kavenaughs legal thinking going forwards

    wasted my time posting
    when i do, its time for the thread to end and new posts
    that way my stuff doesnt get read
    all you ahve to do is right down the times of my posts
    and run them agains the times of the newbies
    after 10 years… well..
    easy peasy
    bye

  18. Artfldgr:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Although I attempt to read many of your comments, I certainly don’t read all of them.

    Also, I wrote most of this post last night, and have talked about the theme of false testimony and/or mistaken witness testimony many times before, for example here.

  19. Artfldgr:

    Having now seen your second comment on the matter, I still have no idea why you would think that, because you state an idea, other people have read your statement and used it to formulate their own ideas. It is simply not true and not logical to think that.

    I have written about the topic of the day care allegations many times as well. For example, I was writing about the situation as far back as 2010. And, as someone who also has experience in doing research in that field, I’ve been aware of the problem long long before I ever started a blog.

    Rest assured that I did NOT get any of my ideas on the subject from you.

    I allow you to continue to comment here despite your periodically insulting me, and insulting me with false accusations. I have asked you many times to cease and desist. I have a lot of patience, but not endless patience. I think you contribute some interesting thoughts and information to this blog, but your gratuitous insults are not a good idea.

  20. If false rape accusations truly only account for 2% to 8% of all accusations, can liberals explain to me why the conviction rate for all sexual assaults is only 13% besides blaming everything on patriarch, the number simply doesn’t add up. If 2% to 8% is the number of false allegations that got caught before an indictment then how many allegations that did result in indictments were in fact false accusation got pushed forward simply because there were probable cause.

  21. Dave:

    I once wrote this article on the subject of the prevalence of false rape accusations.

    By the way, that article was written before “Jackie’s” story was definitely proven to be false, but after it was clear that it was probably false. But it’s the statistics part I want to draw your attention to.

  22. http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-truman-show-world.html

    “A letter from 65 women who knew Brett Kavanaugh when he was young, asserting that he was an unfailing gentleman, is minor evidence that his character is inconsistent with this action. A similar letter from the opposite POV, asserting that Brett was a known problem when he had a few drinks in him would likewise be minor evidence that such things were possible. Neither would be proof, but they have some value. The letter signed by 200 women who went to this woman’s school, spanning years both before and after the alleged incident in question and noting that it feels like their experience, is not in the same category. It is worse than useless, because it stirs up people into thinking that this is germane. The question before the Senate, and thus before the country, is not a referendum on whether men in general are likely to do these things or women in general are likely to misrepresent them. The same would be true of a counter-letter signed by 200 males from Kavanaugh’s school asserting that Holton girls have been making false accusations for years and they’re sick of it. In both cases it’s irrelevant, even if true. Even if all 200 women had bad experiences, even if all 200 men had been falsely accused, it tells us nothing about this case.

    Why, then, are we so quick to make real individual events into abstracts, into referenda whether our particular prejudices are the true ones and those other people’s prejudices untrue? My suggestion is that everyone who does this should be ineligible from participating in further discussion. This is not occasional. It seems to occur even in everyday conversation. “

  23. “DNW, are you channelling me?

    I once showed up at an 8 am class and sat through half of it wondering why we had a sub that day, and then why so many new people were in the room, until I realized there were two sections of the same course, in identically-situated rooms, but on different floors.

    Great minds and all of that.

    By the way it’s possible after all. If it’s not a fake. Even has the same one foot forward posture I recall and a clicking noise that came with the leather soled loafers. Approximately the same kind of stairs too. He’s not even a jock type.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VadMhce7dd0

    Ah my poor old friend. Had him convinced we both were just dreaming. Or maybe I was. Wonder if the old school is still standing.

  24. This is why the testimony of two witnesses is required for conviction under God’s law. They at least have to get their stories straight, that way.

  25. Here’s a fun exercise!
    Think of something familiar; maybe some scene you encounter daily, in some non-emotional context. Got it?
    OK, so now remember details. You see it all the time; surely there’s plenty of detail you’ve absorbed. Yes! You can remember every leaf on a tree, and every brush stroke on a painting!
    Write down several of these details, at various levels. Maybe include some sketches.
    Now! Take your notes, return to the scene, and compare your recorded recollections to objective reality. You’ll be amazed.

    When I tried this, I found that the large oak tree I remembered in such detail, that I passed nearly every morning, didn’t actually exist. It was a conflation of several lesser trees with the stump of a large eucalyptus that had been removed at least a decade earlier.
    And it’s not like I had any incentive to conjure forth a spurious tree; I was merely attempting to recall an everyday scene in detail.

  26. Half a century ago, my parents hired a policeman to teach me to drive (it was a standard practice in that place and time), and one of the things he taught me was that if I were ever in a traffic accident, that I should never discuss it with anyone else involved in the accident. In his experience, if people discussed it, their stories would start to agree, and unless there was physical evidence to the contrary, as far as the law would be able to determine, that would be what had happened. And you can be certain that someone who was at fault would try to steer the discussion to make himself seem less culpable. I actually experienced this, years later, when I was involved in a multi-car accident on I-285; I had successfully stopped before hitting the car in front of me, but the car behind me hit me and pushed me into the car in front. I did not discuss anything with the other drivers, but I saw the driver of the car that hit me do so, with lots of gestures. In the end, since there was no physical evidence that I had NOT impacted the car in front of me, I got cited for “Following Too Close” and got 3 points on my driving record, while he took a Nolo plea and paid a fine with no points. You probably get the impression I am still a bit bitter about it…

  27. Last fall I broke my ankle while hiking. Of course, the first question everyone asked me, because it is the perfectly natural question, is “How did it happen?”

    And I can’t really give a good answer. I couldn’t days after the accident.

    What I remember is going down and my foot being stuck in decomposed granite, which held it fast while the rest of me kept going. This twisted my foot way, way to the outside. I don’t remember how I started falling or exactly how my foot got stuck. I *think* I remember that I may have actually dug my foot in in a vain attempt to keep from falling.

    But the details of this recent, traumatic event, which occurred when I was perfectly sober, just didn’t stick in my memory. *Because my mind was elsewhere when I first started going down; that’s probably why I went down in the first place.*

    Yes. Memory is a distressingly fickle and unreliable thing.

  28. Kent G. Budge on September 19, 2018 at 10:51 am at 10:51 am said:
    Last fall I broke my ankle while hiking. Of course, the first question everyone asked me, because it is the perfectly natural question, is “How did it happen?”
    * * *
    A friend of ours recently suffered a tremendous accident while camping: literally, a tree fell on him.
    He doesn’t remember anything immediately before, during, or shortly after the impact – all he knows is what people have told him.

    Similarly, a friend in HS was jumped by the former boyfriend of a girl he was dating: literally, the boy jumped on our friend’s back and started pounding his head. At the hospital, the victim couldn’t remember the before-during-after, and still doesn’t.

  29. During a therapy session Ford recalled this incident. It seems to me that she was grasping for some way to explain some aspect of her behavior that was damaging her marriage, and something traumatic fit the bill. A vague memory of a party then became an assault.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>