DMac wrote:You believe the never blacked out stuff? I can't prove it's a lie, but I know it is.
In and of itself it's no big deal, throw in the SC judge part and it is (to me).
Certainly his characterization of his drinking without loss of control (other than his "weak stomach") or loss of memory was less than wholly truthful on its face, but more importantly it's belied by numerous former public supporters, friends of his, who have since said "BS, I saw him stumbling drunk many times" etc.
Why does that matter? Yup, the lying.
Why lie? Yup, because if he drank enough to be out of control, he more likely did something dumb or aggressive than if he never lost control. If he can't remember events because of the drinking, and certainly his own words seem to suggest that was the case, much less what his friends say they witnessed, then he can't deny with absolute certainty that it didn't happen. Which would make those denials...a lie. Or at least not the whole truth.
But the lies don't end there. He obviously and egregiously mischaracterizes the yearbook entries that go specifically to the heavy drinking, and just as importantly to the dumb, sophomoric, misogynistic attitudes of he and his crew as youngsters and then young men. Why lie? Same problem, the truth makes it more likely that he could have made this dumb mistake to be overly aggressive with a girl and think nothing of it.
What do we think really happened? He was stupid drunk, was aggressive, she got away, and he never thought twice about it thereafter, has no memory of it actually happening other than a vague uncertainty through the beer haze. She buried it, thanking god she wasn't raped, and hid from the humiliation and degradation that would have ensued had she complained to her parents and beyond about the star student/athlete getting grabby with her at an unchaperoned party with boys and beer...
What else did he lie about? Well, how about characterizing that the other 4 people she had said were there had 'refuted' her story. It's one thing for some dumb layman to misunderstand that word, but a judge? Nope, it was a purposeful, knowing mistruth.
Is there more? Well, sure, the Kosinski tale is way beyond plausible. Again, it would contribute to an adverse view of his own acceptance of such 'humor' and harassment, but hey, it's just a little lie...
)
