Valid testimony

At the heart of Keith Burris’ op-ed “Notes on a Train Wreck” (Sept. 30) lies an obfuscation that hides the weakness of his argument. It is contained in this fragment of his column: “…She presented no proof that Brett Kavanaugh did the damage. Her certitude is not proof. Eyewitnesses are often certain, and wrong. Memory, especially over long periods of time, is more often in error than reliable. Ms. Ford’s trauma should make us respect her pain, but that pain is not proof.”

The term “eyewitness” covers two distinct and unrelated situations. The first is to identify a stranger based on remembered physical characteristics. This is indeed “more often in error than reliable.” The second is to remember a known person — an entirely different matter. Furthermore, her pain does impinge upon her reliability. Trauma lights up the associated memory for a lifetime. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony cannot be dismissed as confused error.

Either Ms. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh has committed perjury. Which one is more credible? Ms. Ford identified Judge Kavanaugh as her attacker in 2012 and 2013 to her counselor and to her husband — long before Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

If the Republican-controlled judicial committee had called them as witnesses they might have corroborated her testimony. She volunteered for an FBI polygraph test which she successfully passed. She requested that Mark Judge, whom she identified as a witness to the assault, be called as a witness. If she were lying, why would she do that? Mark Judge’s autobiography, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk,” mentions a companion in drunkenness named “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” Is there any question who “Bart” might be? This book refutes Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony.

President Donald Trump should withdraw and replace this flawed nomination. DON KLEMENCIC

South Fayette