Posted on 09/25/2018 10:21:55 PM PDT by MaxistheBest
t’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented. Adam Mill By Adam Mill SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.
My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.
Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.
I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.
It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.
When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.
Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.
1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process. Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.
2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage. For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.
3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating. The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.
4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized. The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.
5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version. Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.
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. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.
7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process. It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.
8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained. In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.
9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.
10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information. It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.
These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.
Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.
Why can't we send this link or the article to these people? Inundate them with this information. It might give pause to some.
Oops, sorry, I did read it wrong. You are right.
Wow, if Ford read this she’d surely be a no-show on Thursday. Every point is spot on that she is lying.
But the red flag with an adamant denial is against the accusation, not the denial.
Does the left get to pick a door for their prize now? They'd pick door # 1, 2 & 3 and claim it was only 1 door since they were all on the same stage.
Good. I’m glad you link this article already.
No he is saying if the accused hem haws around there is something to the accusation. If the accused says nope, there is a problem with the accusation.
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.
Yes, I corrected myself in post 22.
I have a question:
IF Ford was never on the West Coast & NEVER did need ‘time to get to Washington DC by driving since she won’t fly’ and the committee can prove that she was in the area ALL THE TIME, can she be prosecuted for lying to the Committee?
IF she cannot prove how she traveled to Washington DC with receipts and other records, AND there is other proof that she has been in the Washington area all along, then she created an ARTIFICIAL delay and LIED to the members of the Senate.
Every cop show on TV today can prove where a person has been by their cell phone activity.
Wouldn’t that be VERY EASY to verify????
We all are very suspicious. I want that information made public regarding her location for the past 10 days.
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.
Ballsey Ford is 10 for 10. I saw #2 play out at work several years ago.
Good question. We haven’t heard a peep about the phony road trip since it was used as a stall. Lying schemer.
Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.
These studies rely on the accused PROVING the charges false.
That’s a hell of a standard.
I'll bet the prosecutor the GOP is using is very very familiar with this.
This guy want a half hearted denial?
Read it again…
Someone ought to make this into an infographic.
They could send it to Ford and all Senate Democrats and the MSM - and all would universally trash it or ignore it without even a second thought.
Fascists are fascist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.