By Michael Brock
“(Atticus Finch) A mob’s always made up of people, no matter what. Mr. Cunningham was part of a mob last night, but he was still a man. Every mob in every little Southern town is always made up of people you know—doesn’t say much for them, does it?”
—Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (Chapter 16, P. 159)1
“The mob believes everything it is told, provided only that it be repeated over and over. Provided too that its passions, hatreds, fears are catered to. Nor need one try to stay within the limits of plausibility: on the contrary, the grosser, the bigger, the cruder the lie, the more readily is it believed and followed. Nor is there any need to avoid contradictions: the mob never notices; needless to pretend to correlate what is said to some with what is said to others: each person or group believes only what he is told, not what anyone else is told; needless to strive for coherence: the mob has no memory; needless to pretend to any truth: the mob is radically incapable of perceiving it: the mob can never comprehend that its own interests are what is at stake.”
—Alexandre Koyré, Reflections on the Lie2
“The modern lie—this is its distinctive quality—is mass-produced and aimed at the masses. Now, any mass production, any production—any intellectual production especially—intended for the mass, is obliged to lower its standards. So, if nothing is more refined than the technique of modern propaganda, nothing is more rude than the content of its assertions, which reveal an absolute and total disregard for the truth. And even mere likelihood. Contempt, which is only equaled by that which it implies, of the mental faculties of those to whom it is addressed.”
—Alexandre Koyré, Reflections on the Lie3
The other night my SO and I watched the Gregory Peck movie, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” based on the Harper Lee book of the same title. The book has long been a classic because of its portrayal of the systematic discrimination against blacks in the South. Of course, the South was not the only place where racism existed, but it tended to be more violent, and historically, lynchings4 were a common occurrence before the situation began to improve with the civil rights movement.
In the story (which I’m sure everyone knows), a black man named Tom Robinson was accused of raping a white woman and was subsequently convicted of the crime. The story is told through the eyes of a child, nicknamed “Scout,” who seems to have been the author as a child, and, interestingly, included another famous writer, Truman Capote, whose name in the book and film was “Dill,” and with whom Lee remained lifelong friends.
In one scene, a lynch mob gathers outside the jail where Robinson is being held. The only person standing in their way is Scout’s father, Atticus Finch, a lawyer who has been appointed to defend Robinson, and, being a man of integrity, does a creditable job.
It is unknown whether the lynching would have taken place without the presence of Scout and her brother, who defied their father’s instructions and ran to the jailhouse to see what was going on. Ultimately, the lynch mob dispersed when Scout innocently asked one of the would be killers—whom she knew to be a client of her father—what he was doing there, inadvertently shaming him into leaving.
In a real life situation, it is typically impossible to say for sure what the truth is, but it is obvious from the way this story is told that Harper Lee believes Tom Robinson is innocent. The book is clearer than the movie that this is so, as there is a detailed description of Mayella Ewell enticing Tom Robinson into her house in order to seduce him.
Even with the elimination of this description, however, the trial gives us a clear understanding of what happened: Mayella’s injuries were inflicted by a left handed man, and since Tom’s left hand is useless, and since Mayella’s father Robert is left handed, and a mean drunk, it is clear that he beat his daughter when he saw her trying to seduce Tom. Attorney Finch also notes that there was also no effort to obtain a medical exam or treatment, despite Mayella’s injuries, and the assertion that she said she had been raped.
The facts had no impact on the jury, however, who returned from deliberation with a guilty verdict. The reasons for this are obvious: the code of protecting a woman’s honor at that time in the South (1932) was more important than the truth5, and—as Lee clearly points out in the book—Mayella’s fake emotionalism brings out the protective impulse in every man and boy who is not himself a predator.6 At the end of the book Mayella’s father Robert Ewell is killed while trying to attack the Finch children by an unlikely hero name Boo Radley, a reclusive neighbor with apparent mental health issues, but a good heart.
I thought about this story in the context of the Kavanaugh hearings, and it occurred to me how little has changed. Although women are now just as powerful and capable as men of holding the highest offices, and discharging their responsibilities as well or better than men, the party line is that they are still fragile and in need of constant protection from all men—not just black men. In addition, the position that women should be taken seriously insists on the abolition of due process rights for any man accused of molesting a woman, whether or not there is any evidence and even when what is offered as proof is highly inconsistent or provably false.
The Kavanaugh hearings again put forward the age old argument—exemplified by the oft repeated chant, “Believe the survivor!”—that it is ultimately women’s emotionalism, not the logic or rationality of their arguments that is to be taken seriously, and that men who do not accept the unsupported word of a woman alleging violation are lacking in honor—the same argument made by Mayella to the jury in the Tom Robinson case. If men are incapable of comprehending the emotional position that everything a woman says is absolute truth, then they just don’t get it and should simply “shut up.”7
Not all women feel this way, of course, but enough do to control one of the two major parties in the country, and to influence the other party enough for one woman8 to break ranks with her fellow Republicans and vote her emotions; to side, as it were, with the position that emotion should rule the day. She said as much.9 But in her report to the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee10, career prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned Ford during the hearing, pointed out the inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s allegations, stating that the case against Kavanaugh would not even meet a preponderance standard of evidence; meaning that Ford’s allegations are most probably false. She notes the following information put forth by Dr. Ford at the hearing and heralded as irrefutable proof by her supporters:
“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened ... She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review ... failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year ... struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name ... in her 2012 marriage therapy notes ... or in her 2013 individual therapy notes ... she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married. But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage ... Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account ... who invited her to the party or how she heard about it ... how she got to the party ... in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located ... most importantly ... how she got from the party back to her house ... she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both ... But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver ... Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend [Leland Keyser] ... All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever ... Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford ... the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question” ... Leland [Keyser], apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared ... According to the Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted. She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom ... In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party. In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward. Dr. Ford listed Patrick ‘PJ’ Smyth as a ‘bystander’ in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post ... She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s. Dr. Ford ... could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter ... does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that ‘portions’ of her ‘therapist’s notes’ were ‘provided by Ford and reviewed by’ the Post ... Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records ... Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee ... She did not contact the Senate ... because she claims she ‘did not know how to do that.’ Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being ... recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral ... the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies ‘fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and ... work.’ She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing ... ”
It occurs to me that if anyone were to present a story as amorphous and full of holes—that is to say, testimony including provably untrue statements, statements so vague as to be completely unprovable or disprovable, self-contradicting statements, and highly improbable allegations—as this to Robert Mueller as part of his investigation of the “Russian collusion,” he would have a field day with it. In fact, I’m sure any prosecutor in any case would have a high degree of confidence of prevailing against a defendant who gave this quality of testimony on the stand, or in a written statement. My guess is that the best a defense attorney would be able to provide for his client in these circumstances is a reasonable plea deal.
But the accuser is not on trial, and under the new code of jurisprudence, she is able to make any allegation she wants to without fear of repercussion as long as she does it in a vulnerable little girl voice. This deference is demanded by the current crop of feminist activists and legislators, all of whom are “true believers.”
Other changes to judicial procedure demanded by feminists include the insistence that highly public, extremely humiliating, and baseless criminal charges of a sexual nature brought against men in extra-or quasi-judicial hearings do not constitute a criminal trial. This modification of our legal system began with the “dear colleague letter of 2011” which allows sexual assault charges to be brought against men in kangaroo courts on college campuses, justifying trials that do not include lawyers, corroboration,
reasonable standards of proof, or the ability to submit relevant exculpatory evidence or confront one’s accuser through cross-examination. Tangentially, it also means that genuine proof is not required in real criminal courts that do result in lifetime consequences for innocent men convicted on “he said she said” evidence.
But if you doubt that campus kangaroo courts are in fact criminal courts, you need but read Kirsten Gillibrand’s op-ed in the Huffington Post11 calling Paul Nungesser, the person accused by Emma Sulkowicz and exonerated by both the kangaroo courts and the legitimate legal establishment, a rapist. She does so blatantly, and though a lawsuit against Columbia University was resolved in Nungesser’s favor, she has yet to apologize to him for her and Sulkowicz’ false allegations. Neither have any of the members of the press who gave Sulkowicz a platform for her vendetta against an ex-lover by whom she felt jilted. (Don’t expect one any time soon.)
Gillibrand is among the shrillest of the feminist lawmakers who are insisting on the new standard of justice, and her position is very clear—there is no proof sufficient to refute any allegation of sexual abuse that she has chosen to believe before any evidence was presented.12 An acquittal simply means that another perpetrator got off because there was not enough evidence to convict, regardless of whether the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt or a mere preponderance. The only standard of proof acceptable to Gillbrand, Hirono, and their brand of feminists is an accusation. Any accusation constitutes proof.
What feminists mean when they say that the Nungesser trial or the Kavanaugh trial are not criminal trials, is that the person they have charged with sexual crimes will not do any prison time if convicted, and—far more importantly—no proof is necessary to get a conviction by the liberal establishment and their propaganda media, and in the court of public opinion. Moreover, such a conviction should automatically have the effect of disqualifying that man for any position of responsibility or power and permanently brand him with a scarlet P for Predator.
Men in power give considerable deference to these positions. Instead of calling out Christine Ford for her “inconsistencies” under oath, they say things like, “Oh, I’m sure she was attacked by someone, just not by Brett Kavanaugh.” And, “Oh, her testimony was sincere, there’s no doubt.” Basically, they are just confirming what Harper Lee said decades ago in her politically incorrect novel, “Women manipulate through manufactured emotions, and men are suckers, whose protective instincts can be easily manipulated, especially because they believe these lies will never touch them personally.”
Due process, including burden of proof, standards of proof, rules of evidence, and legal precedent serve very clear purposes: to discern the truth as nearly as possible. Principles of due process are psychologically exquisite, having evolved over a period of 800 years, and are far superior to extra-legal and non-scientific13 methods of ascertaining truth because:
1) It is impossible to tell by pseudoscience, or by gauging a person’s demeanor and emotional responses at trial, whether or not they are telling the truth. The research for this has been discussed ad nauseam in previous articles. It is significant that in the Kavanaugh hearing Ford was given “credibility” points for expressing emotion, while Kavanaugh was given demerits for expressing his.
2) I have quoted the APA on the polygraph14 in previous articles, and will not repeat it. The fact that lawyers and law enforcement officers want to continue using it shows their own disregard for both science and legal precedent.
3) There are variables in any legal or quasi-legal proceeding, and juries will assess the credibility of various witnesses and the attorneys when reaching a verdict, but the research shows that juries get it right about half the time—as often as they would by flipping a coin. Actually, it’s a little less than that when you factor in that jurors are more likely to believe a male is lying than a female.15
4) When they get it obviously wrong (when the jury’s conclusion contradicts overwhelming evidence), the judge has the option of throwing a verdict out, as Judge Langford-Morris did in the James Perry16 trial. Most judges lack this kind of moral courage, especially if the truth contradicts their own bias or the prevailing politics.
5) Fairness dictates that junk science (such as trauma assessment) or other unproven methods of truth seeking do not influence the outcome of a trial. Psychotherapy process, for example, is a notoriously poor means of ascertaining objective truth, and forensic scientists agree that it should never be used for this purpose.17 Again, I have covered this topic extensively in previous articles and will not repeat myself. However, it is unfortunate that judges who must make decisions about what constitutes good science in the courtroom often make no effort to understand what constitutes accepted forensic science.18
6) The most accurate way of discerning whether someone is telling the truth is to compare what they have to say with known facts, the testimony of others, and the consistency of the statements being considered with other statements made by the same person. This is a principle agreed upon by both psychology and law.
7) Quality of speech is another telling element of truth-tellers vs. liars. “Colwell and colleagues reported that one difference in the quality of spoken information between liars and honest individuals is in the spontaneity of the information provided. Individuals who are being truthful are more spontaneous in their telling of the story. In fact, they are more likely to add new details during an interview than deceptive individuals are. This is probably because a deceptive person needs to be very cautious about telling a consistent story, and so will present with carefully controlled speech. In fact, Colwell et al. suggest that decreased detail or content and highly controlled speech, in combination, may be the best-spoken indicator of deception. Although liars showed that they were aware of the need for consistency and a believable story, Aldelson cited research that showed that liars’ stories are actually more vague, less believable, and less logical than individuals who tell the truth.”19
8) Another psychological principle that is related, is that the best predictor of a person’s future behavior is past behavior, but the use of previous behavior in the courts regarding a specific case is ill advised for what should be obvious reasons; the prejudicial effects will outweigh the probative value. No generality can ever fairly be applied to a specific event (racism?), but the courts ignore this obvious principle when they allow evidence of what is in some cases merely alleged past acts to be presented as evidence of guilt.
9) The requirements of actual evidence, credible testimony, and the burden of proof being on the State in a criminal trial, or on the moving party in a civil proceeding reduce the potential effects of emotionalism on the outcome of a trial. It may not be impossible to prove that something didn’t happen, but it is far easier to prove that something did happen, and it is worse to punish the innocent than to exonerate the guilty.
10) Completely unsubstantiated cases lacking any but “he said, she said” evidence should never disgrace a courtroom. Interestingly, the Torah with its harsh punishments including many offenses that call for the death penalty, required that there be more than one witness in a capital case (Numbers 35:3020). Ancient Jews seemed to understand something that we moderns have forgotten: any fact finder (especially a jury) is more likely to consider emotional content and pre-conceived bias rather than substance when making an unknowable decision, as they did in the Tom Robinson case.
11) In the Kavanaugh case, what supporting testimony existed all favored Kavanaugh, but the chant of “believe survivors,” indisputably meant vote your bias. One male crossed the line in support of the judge, and one female crossed over in support of Dr. Ford. Due process guarantees reduce the impact of the bias brought to court by jurors, especially if they have read news media coverage of the event. This is especially relevant today, given the prevalence of, and the biased nature of, most media.
12) Without due process of law, mob mentality rules, and mob mentality makes idiots of everyone, as Harper Lee points out in her novel.
Obvious as these fact are, experience is that the general public and even legal experts don’t get it. Maybe they don’t want to get it. Police and politicians want to believe that they can divine truth through the use of instruments that the American Psychological Association keeps reiterating, have no scientific value, and the courts have ruled have no value as evidence in a court of law. As a professional psychologist, Blasey Ford certainly knows this. And every lawyer in the country knows that her polygrapher was a hired gun, and that if her polygraph had not produced the results she wanted, no one would ever know about it. Moreover, she was not asked any difficult questions, and would not have experienced any consequences if she did lie under oath, which Mitchell’s report suggests she did.
That the whole Kavanaugh/Ford hearing exercise was one of extreme stupidity is, to me, undeniable fact. But there is something much more sinister at work here which allows intelligent people to act in a very stupid manner; it is the religious nature of ideology. As a student of religion, I am amazed by the fact that people will swallow so much of what they know can’t be true in order to belong to the group that they were born into (the vast majority of people) or that they think offers them the best chance of getting what they want in this life or the next. But religions also have a moral component—at least when they are not combined with political agendas—and generally encourage honesty, love, compassion, and virtuous behavior among their followers. Equality under the law for believer and non-believer is a basic principle of Judaism and Christianity.21
Secular religions rarely contain these components: the worship of money, power, sex, fame, or political ideology tends to discard moral behavior in favor of “the end justifies the means” philosophy. Mob mentality is a powerful thing. Nor does it surprise me that the mob turns on itself and eats its own. Seven decades after the Holocaust, what shocks me most about it is the way the German mob turned on their fellow Germans. By venting their rage on the Jews, the Germans (in the words of Alan Bloom) insured their own defeat in the Second World War.22 It should not need to be pointed out that, since mob mentality has turned nations on their Jews in the past, it could do so in the future, but Alan Dershowitz is the only high profile Jewish spokesman who seems to get this, the evidence that this is already happening in America notwithstanding.23 24
Professor Dershowitz has good reason for his profound concern that the American Civil Liberties Union has thrown its charter of defending the rights of the currently unpopular under the bus in favor of politically correct ideology.25 The collapse of the rule of law, or the usurpation of judicial authority by extreme ideologues has not be historically good for Jews or any other minority. The fact that black male leaders like Corey Booker26 27 28 don’t see this shocks me.
By throwing out the rule book—the standards of proof, the burden of proof, corroboration, the rules of evidence, and the other guarantees of due process in favor of
emotionalism and mob mentality—the feminists and their allies are fostering chaos and tyranny, while also giving credence to the long discredited argument that a woman’s politics should not be taken seriously because they are emotional and manipulative. That a woman can make a rational and exquisitely logical argument for her position was as evident in Susan Collins’ speech to the Senate,29 as it was absent in Murkowski’s insipid effort,30 but which of them will benefit?
Right now tyranny favors emotional feminism because extremist propaganda and the erosion of personal liberty being driven forward by the far left has replaced rational dialogue so gradually over a long period of time that their extremism now seems normal, and they have the mob behind them. That will probably change when the number of men unfairly charged with crimes without evidence reaches a critical mass. When that happens, the backlash will be profound.
(Continued)
