This is not meant to be a political review, but given this well-known statement and alleged incident, a cursory review reveals more questions than answers, and perhaps some insight into truth v. deception.
First, the underlying incident is said to have occurred in July 1997, 14 years ago, how accurate does a person remember personal interactions and conversations? Pretty well if you follow this statement. However, that can and should be individualized during the interview process.
“...he asked how I liked my room...I've got this great suite, it’s gorgeous. [he] said, ‘I upgraded you." [and followed by a general description, though quoted conversation, of dinner and asking for assistance finding a job.]
-- Remember, she reports that he upgraded her to a suite without her knowledge. Why did she not wonder about this?
“While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the ... offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so he that could show me around. [accurate clothing description for her, general for him].
-- Remember, he parked the car down the block. Why did she not wonder about this, or why not park in the parking garage or facility? Most adults are not keen on city block roadside extra-marital activities.
"But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch.
-- There is no conversation, no flirting - just straight to the point (this is sexual assault as described); he didn't even unzip, unbutton or remove his pants. Picture yourself in the driver's front seat of a vehicle (to make it easy, even a bench seat) and now reach with your right hand as if under a skirt while concurrently grabbing her head. Doesn't work well. Switch hands - even less likely. Notice the good gal / bad guy descriptors - her genitalia and his crotch. The other question - why park on the street when you have 1) an office that is likely private; or 2) a suite that you upgraded your prey to?
-- In reviewing this full statement, there are several time gaps, but we'll let most of those go because this was a statement for a press conference. However, for the most part the significant time and information gap is when the car is parked down the block. What truly happened approximate to this? Whatever it was, its not in her statement. She then describes first seeing him after 14 years giving a speech...
“During his speech ... As I sat there in the audience, I kept wondering to myself, has he done to other women what he had done to me, and whether anyone was going to speak up about it? I really hoped for his sake that and his candidacy that mine was an isolated incident and that he had not exhibited those behaviors with other women."
-- She describes in this statement that she wondered if he had done this to other women...and it the same sentence if anyone - others - would speak up. Did she think she was the only one or not? She then reverts back to hoping hers was isolated and not other women.
paragraph continues...."I didn't file a complaint against Mr. Cain as some of the other women did because I wasn't employed by the foundation when this occurred."
-- Now we're back to including other women - which was it...was she alone or had she been provided knowledge of other women?
Statements like these are why attorneys should always have investigators on their team, and complete the investigative process before going public with what are, apparently, at least partially false statements.
First, the underlying incident is said to have occurred in July 1997, 14 years ago, how accurate does a person remember personal interactions and conversations? Pretty well if you follow this statement. However, that can and should be individualized during the interview process.
“...he asked how I liked my room...I've got this great suite, it’s gorgeous. [he] said, ‘I upgraded you." [and followed by a general description, though quoted conversation, of dinner and asking for assistance finding a job.]
-- Remember, she reports that he upgraded her to a suite without her knowledge. Why did she not wonder about this?
“While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the ... offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so he that could show me around. [accurate clothing description for her, general for him].
-- Remember, he parked the car down the block. Why did she not wonder about this, or why not park in the parking garage or facility? Most adults are not keen on city block roadside extra-marital activities.
"But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch.
-- There is no conversation, no flirting - just straight to the point (this is sexual assault as described); he didn't even unzip, unbutton or remove his pants. Picture yourself in the driver's front seat of a vehicle (to make it easy, even a bench seat) and now reach with your right hand as if under a skirt while concurrently grabbing her head. Doesn't work well. Switch hands - even less likely. Notice the good gal / bad guy descriptors - her genitalia and his crotch. The other question - why park on the street when you have 1) an office that is likely private; or 2) a suite that you upgraded your prey to?
-- In reviewing this full statement, there are several time gaps, but we'll let most of those go because this was a statement for a press conference. However, for the most part the significant time and information gap is when the car is parked down the block. What truly happened approximate to this? Whatever it was, its not in her statement. She then describes first seeing him after 14 years giving a speech...
“During his speech ... As I sat there in the audience, I kept wondering to myself, has he done to other women what he had done to me, and whether anyone was going to speak up about it? I really hoped for his sake that and his candidacy that mine was an isolated incident and that he had not exhibited those behaviors with other women."
-- She describes in this statement that she wondered if he had done this to other women...and it the same sentence if anyone - others - would speak up. Did she think she was the only one or not? She then reverts back to hoping hers was isolated and not other women.
paragraph continues...."I didn't file a complaint against Mr. Cain as some of the other women did because I wasn't employed by the foundation when this occurred."
-- Now we're back to including other women - which was it...was she alone or had she been provided knowledge of other women?
Statements like these are why attorneys should always have investigators on their team, and complete the investigative process before going public with what are, apparently, at least partially false statements.
