"Reasonable" and "plausible" are not objective terms. You are being subjective in using those.
Yet reasonable is regularly used and recognized in court cases.
Not one single one of which have been corroborated by anyone, including the people she "factually" named as being witnesses to the alleged assault and at the home where the alleged assault occurred. One of those alleged witnesses was her best friend at the time who has no recollection of any such event and claims to have never met or been in the presence of Kavanaugh.
The alleged witnesses gave neutral statements that neither proved nor disproved her statement.
Most people that I have read commenting on the lack of memory of many of the surrounding moments of Ford's assertions of fact are not claiming that those failures to remember are proof of a false accusation, but that the failure of memory demonstrates the possibility that the things she claims to remember may not be factual.
This is a valid and reasonable question about the accuracy of her memory.
Why would someone conclude that her lack of memory of things such as how she got there and how she got home and why her best friend who was there never asked her about why Ford disappeared from the house without saying a word to her or asked her anything about how she got home, etc. is not evidence of possible mistaken memory or intentional lying?
I have driven home a number of drunk friends from high school parties (I never drank) and I don't think they remembered how they got home. That is why I am saying it is reasonable that Ford could remember going to a party but not how she got home. Let me ask you this though, what if Ford did have a memory of who drove her home and how she got to the party, would that do anything to change your mind?
You're kidding right? No one can "prove a negative". No one can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Impossible. No one can prove that any of the events alleged by Ford didn't occur. Impossible. All the people can say who she claims were witnesses to the events are "Yes, I was there" or "No, I was not at such a gathering or witness to any such events, to the best of my recollection". All the people she named, including her best friend at the time said the latter. No one can prove it didn't happen. Only Ford can produce corroborating evidence that it DID happen. Thus far she has not produced a single piece of corroborative evidence.
My point there was that one of the witnesses was an accomplice to the alleged crime so it makes no sense that people are in a rush to cite Judge's lack of memory of such an incident as proof of her mistaken memory. If you were part of a crime you would most likely deny it would you not?
The "second front door" to her home, which she claimed was the cause of the marital issues that led to her being in therapy (whose notes she won't release to investigators) in 2012 had been installed at least by 2011 at the latest, and was installed based upon a bulding permit taken out in 2007. So five years after the permit is taken out they have to go to marital counseling because they're still having an issue with her need for a second front door due to being groped 30 years previously? There is evidence that the door was installed to allow for an illegal rental within the home. She had claimed that the hearing would have to be delayed because of her fear of flying, yet she traveled on planes frequently. Etc. Etc. Etc. Rachel Mitchell outlined some of the "problems" with Ford's testimony in her summary, which concluded her account was not credible enough to bring charges, or even to get a search warrant, i.e. "probably cause".
The way trauma manifests itself in the brain does not always make logical sense. The whole fear of flying thing is overblown, having a fear doesn't mean one abstains from that thing. The face Ford flies regularly does not prove she is lying about a fear of flying. This is kind of a stretch in my opinion. But like I said, I agree there are some holes in her testimony.
That's what you consider an "objective" statement of fact? That's a joke. That is pure 100% subjectivity. Here's my subjective take on that: You're a hypocrite.
And why is my opinion that Kavanaugh had a worse hearing any less valid than your opinion that he did better than Ford? Sounds like a double standard.
But I don't just make that up out of thin air, I can explain the reasons why I think Kavanaugh had a poor showing.
-He appeared to be lying about what things like Boof, devil's triangle, etc. meant.
-He came out very angry and maintained that. (I don't consider this proof he is lying, only that his demeanor is not that of what is expected from a SCOTUS judge.
-He snapped back at the senator when questioned about drinking to the point of blacking out
-He spoke a lot about how much he liked to drink beer.
-He admitted to drinking a lot of alcohol in high school, something which he initially denied publicly.
-He mischaracterized what the witnesses stated. There is no excuse for a federal judge to mischaracterize such a thing.
-He claimed he never drank to the point he blacked out which contradicts a speech he made 4 years prior where they had to "piece things together" after a night of too much drinking.
So no, it isn't just subjective, I can back up my opinion with facts. I don't think there is enough to prosecute Kavanaugh for rape however I do think that Kavanaugh's performance at the hearing means he shouldn't be a supreme court justice though. Ford's testimony didn't change my mind, Kavanaugh shot himself in the foot.
It is probably true that some people believe what they believe independent of evidence, but maybe far fewer than you believe. I believe a very large percentage of people would be swayed by "credible" evidence, just as juries are. The fact is that there is absolutely not one shred of corroborating evidence for the allegations of Ford. There is a lot of evidence that she is mistaken and/or lying about a number of her assertions. That tilts the scale. But the bottom line is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. Plus, the whole thing just smells
When it came to the senate hearing there appeared to be very few who were considered swayable. When I looked at arguments on here and facebook it seemed there were very few who appeared swayable.
You are right, there is no evidence to corroborate her statement about the specific incident. There are corroborating statements about Kavanaugh drinking to excess however that is circumstantial. Keep in mind thought that lots of crimes never have corroborating evidence.
If your point is that Kavanaugh should not be convicted given a lack of evidence I agree. Claiming that the lack of corroborating evidence is proof she lied though is a non sequitur and that is what I am speaking out against. I was not for or against Kavanaugh.