I don’t think so.
Number 6?
6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial. In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial.
This guy want a half hearted denial?
’ In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth ‘ Rubbish. There are plenty of people falsely accused of sexual harassment or accused using what the woman claims / believes is sexual harassment.
I think you are reading it wrong...it took me a few reads to get it. He’s saying when the accused adamantly denies it, it’s believable. At least that’s how I read it.
Kavanaugh said the attack on Ford may have happened. It just wasn’t him.
“When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible.”
It sounds like most of the cases, the accuser DOES have what they think is a legitimate claim. And that he often hears a lot of B.S. when the person is trying to explain things away. But when the accused just comes out and says “I have no idea what they are talking about - I was never even at the party” - most of the time the accused is innocent.
This really is an amazing article on how spot-on it is.
You missed the last part...
“Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.”
He came out right out of the box that he was innocent. What are you talking about?
These are all excellent points.
In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims.”””
My take on that statement:
The kernel of truth is that the accused was somewhere in the vicinity, but didn’t do as charged.
In Kavanaugh’s case, I don’t even think he was in town when Ford claims her attack happened.
I have a kernel of truth example. A former supervisor started the harassment behaviors with invitations to lunch that conveniently included a pit stop at his house. Instead of flatly denying these lunch trips, he would justify the lunch invitation as well as the stop at his house.
Not everyone got an invitation or accepted an invitation to lunch. By the time he invited me, I had been advised to decline. Not everyone who went to lunch got the house tour. However, some of his rationalizations of these actions strengthened the accuser’s case.
I think you read that backwards.
This guy want a half hearted denial?
Read it again…
Re-read that. I had a problem with it too. He’s saying that when the accused makes a strong denial it’s a red flag to the veracity to the claim.
That often there’s some kernel of truth. You are in the same room, you say hi, she takes it as sexual harassment. There’s something there. You were in the same room and initiated contact. When the flat out unequvical denial is issued, it often shows the accuser is lying and there is nothing to the story.
It’s accurate, but worded strangely.