To: JBL who wrote (35029 ) 2/22/1999 10:59:00 PM From: Dwight E. Karlsen Respond to of 67261
When you have ppl "remembering" things that happened when they were seven years old, that's a lot different than two full-grown adult women, one married, who remembers getting assaulted in a hotel room by Clinton, and can even relate details such as looking at a building that has since been torn down, but did exist at the time. And she has no axe to grind, no book to write, she's not suing him, not pressing charges. Just relating that yes, she was in fact raped and assaulted by the now current POTUS, back when he was Attorney-General of Arkansas. People ask why she didn't tell the authorities: Hello! Who's at the top of the law food chain in Arkansas back then! Who can hire and fire at will, no questions asked? Nobody is going to risk their career because some woman from out of town says the Attorney General raped her in her hotel room! They're going to shake their head and wonder how people can imagine such things, much less make the accusation. For a while I thought I had, as a child, witnessed what we locally call the "Columbus Day Storm". I had the whole picture in my mind of what I "saw". Eventually my mother reminded me that I wasn't even born then, and likely I was remembering a scene that siblings had related of what *THEY* saw. I'm not saying I don't trust kids' memories at all. But when you've got well-intentioned adults coaching those memories along the "right path", things get a little dicy for "evidence" to be presented in court. I believe that you have to have more than one (two or three) independent, non-coached memories in order to have a memory resurrected be presented as crucial evidence in court. Again, there isn't a similarity to the Broaddrick story. It's not like she never told anyone at the time, and is only now "remembering" it. Her now-current husband even had at least one run-in with Clinton because of the crime that ocurred.