It is fair to question Vanessa Tyson's recollection. It is unfair to suggest she's a con plant

[DemocratSinceBirth]

A Professor at Scripps College, Tyson is an ‘Expert’ on Congress & Race & Gender Policy. A Colleague Said She Has a History of ‘Speaking the Truth’


Tyson is an associate professor of political science at Scripps College, the Women’s College at Claremont. She is currently on leave while she completes her fellowship at Stanford.

According to the Women’s Media Center, Tyson is an “expert on US Congress, policy formulation, race, gender, and social justice.”

A longtime colleague, Dr. Ravi K. Perry, told local Virginia media that “Everything my colleagues and I know about her in a professional setting is that she has a history of speaking the truth.”

Perry, an African-American political scientist, professor, and author was quoted in an interview with WUSA saying in his experience Tyson is a “stand-up woman.”

“Given the history that I know with Dr. Tyson, there’s no reason to believe something other than what she wrote. She’s a stand-up woman with a growing, expansive and noted research career. There’s no reason to suggest that she would be saying something that is inaccurate,” he told WUSA.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/02/vanessa-tyson/

[doompatrol39]

1. I'm annoyed by the Northham spinning on here...

...I don't agree with it, but......o.k.

But the degree to which people on here, who are supposed to be progressive, supposed to be champions and defenders of women are attempting to smear this woman who there are next to zero indications that she's a Republican or malicious or whatever, is flat out disgusting.

[OnDoutside]

2. What's Northam got to do with Tyson ?

[doompatrol39]

4. Both are unfolding right now in Virginia....

...both impact Democratic governance of the state. And both are things that if Republicans did them we would absolutely be fuming about and calling for their heads. Anyone who denies that is either delusional of lying out of their asses.

[OnDoutside]

10. Virginia yes, but not in this thread.

[Demit]

3. As abhorrent as it might seem to you, there still is such a thing as reasonable doubt.

I am a champion of women. I am a woman. But I don't give blank checks to anybody.

[doompatrol39]

5. And if you were applying that to Kavanaugh, and Trump...

...and Republicans then absolutely good for you. That is noble.

But most of the people on here were not then but now are all of a sudden superfans of due process.

And in the case of say Franken, there was more than enough that was fishy about that situation and more than enough to indicate that the woman was either exaggerating the emotional impact of what happened (which keep in mind was bad, but not full out rape), or that she had Republican leanings.

None of that exists in this case. Not a single bit of it. I'm all for reasonable doubt, and I'm not even saying we should convict without due process. But there's a chasm of difference between not rushing to judgement and all of the victim blaming going on here on DU over the past week. What women should and shouldn't do, etc. That's what I'm talking about.

[Demit]

11. I don't see the two situations as identical at all.

One, we had a lot more information on Kavanaugh; we were able to observe him, his behavior and temperament, firsthand. Two, the victim in question was a teenage girl as opposed to being a 25-year-old woman. Three, she was an unwilling participant at every stage of the encounter. I didn't give a blank check to Dr Ford right off the bat either. I got to watch her & listen to her testimony. I got to see how she responded to questions. I thought it was very brave of her to do that.

[doompatrol39]

13. None of that makes any sense....

So we had more information on Kavanaugh than we have Fairfax........but we're defending him anyway?

So.....we're more comfortable and confident with the recollections of a woman when she was a teenager several decades ago......but not of a full grown woman within the past 10 years?

And "unwilling participant"........is there a "willing participant" in rape?

Fore the record I believed Dr. Ford, but I've also seen zero reason not to believe Fairfax's accuser as well. But then again I hold Democrats to the same moral standard that I do Republicans. Clearly that's not the case on here.

[DeminPennswoods]

6. Thank you

I read in another thread that her charge against Fairfax was the result of a repressed memory brought out during therapy or through her work with assault victimes. If that's true, then, to me, that's problematic because people can convince themselves something is true or happened when it never did or happened differently. (Exhibit A has been sitting in the Oval Office for the past 2 years.) It's not a perfect example, but there are many confirmed instances of people giving false confessions where suspects are told things by interrogators and then incorporate those into their confession.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Vanessa Tyson said she suppressed the memory, not repressed it.

The latter requires therapy to recollect it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Is reasonable doubt the standard of proof in these instances?

Or is it

-more likely than not
-clear and convincing evidence

which are the standards in civil court depending on the jurisdiction?

[Demit]

9. I guess you're referring to a jury trial situation?

My understanding is that Dr Tyson is not pressing charges. But if she were to, and Fairfax was charged with rape, rape is a criminal offense & the case would be tried in criminal court, right? The standard of guilt in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard of "preponderance of evidence" is the one applied in civil court.

Out here in the court of public opinion is where I am, where we all are. I used "reasonable doubt" to mean that I don't arrive at a judgment—I don't "convict"—based on one person's story. It seems a lot of people are wanting to do that here. But an accusation is not evidence. When it happens in my personal life—such as when a friend accuses a mutual friend of having done something terrible—I have questions, and I will probe for the answers. I can't make a judgment until I have heard more.

[peggysue2]

12. Haven't seen any evidence at all that Tyson or the other woman are plants

On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to question any allegation. That doesn't involve smearing the accuser but simply asking questions. We can be supportive of a woman's right to voice past abuses while investigating the charges themselves.

This became much more complicated for everyone with the second allegation, an allegation of rape. The second allegation apparently includes corroborative testimony from friends to whom the woman shared details of the attack when it happened in 2000.

Justin Fairfax has vehemently denied both allegations. So, either he's an innocent man unfairly accused or a total sociopath, a sexual predator. There's not much wiggle room between the two.

The whole thing is about as ugly as you can get. Of course, the Republicans are relishing every moment and point to the Kavanaugh debacle--payback, baby!

I read last night that one of Virginia's Dem legislators has said he will call for impeachment of Fairfax on Monday morning. I assume that will entail an investigation and testimony from all parties. As for Justin Fairfax? If he steps down now, it will appear to the public that he's admitting guilt. If he doesn't step down, this firestorm will continue, impeachment proceedings may proceed and whatever way it goes, it will be very, very messy. For everyone.

With the Northam and Herring incidents you have the ethical/moral question of past behavior vs the practical considerations (basically turning the state's leadership over to the Republicans, nullifying an election). Northam has dug in and said he will not resign, particularly in light of the Fairfax situation. Then the question is how effective will he be in the position as a wounded and weakened leader? I suspect he will turn himself inside out in all things race related (voting suppression/voter rights or taking down those Civil War monuments, for instance). Will that be enough? I don't know. Herring seems the least wounded of the three and to his credit has reportedly reached out to the AA community and leadership in an attempt to find some way forward. I'm guessing Northam has done the same.

Whatever way you cut it this whole shebang is a disaster. The Fairfax dilemma, however, is the most serious because we're talking criminal allegations. And yes, the women involved will be pressured to testify and provide details in the same way Dr. Ford testified. That's when credibility will be judged (by the public at least).

A hot mess!

[Blue_Tires]

14. She's no plant but her timing is highly suspect