I share your concern, not only about the reliability of Annie’s flashbacks, but also about the validity of the claims she’s made as a whole. As I note in my response to “Objection 4”, Annie has provided no direct evidence to corroborate her claims, to the best of my knowledge.
This seems like a thing that, even if true, would not lead to any direct evidence? Like presumably the only evidence of the sexual abuse that persists this long is gonna be her memories, Sam Altman’s memories, and maybe other family members memories.
(Or I suppose maybe they could run a PPG test on Sam Altman to better measure his sexuality? But AFAIK such tests are somewhat noisy and basically never performed.)
Yes, I think you raise valid points. Given that Annie’s (purported) sexual abuse occurred so long ago, I agree that it is unlikely that, at this point, direct evidence of Sam’s (purported) sexual abuse of her would be able to gathered.
Deviating a bit from your reply to the more general question of “What direct evidence could be provided (e.g. by Annie) to corroborate the claims Annie is making?”—I do think that a potentially useful piece of evidence that could be provided to corroborate (some of) Annie’s claims would be proof that:
Annie’s father left her money in his will.
Annie did not receive this money, as specified in the will.
I suspect that only the people involved will ever know the truth about the sexual abuse accusation. The claim about money, although in my opinion less serious, seems much easier to investigate. (And then, we can make a probabilistic update about the other claim.)
Other accusations in the article, such as Sam not willing to link a podcast, don’t seem important to me.
Those claims would be nice to know the answer to, though I don’t know that proving those claims would prove the sexual abuse allegations, nor that disproving those claims would disprove the sexual abuse allegations. Obviously one could argue that these claims are evidence about the relative trustworthiness of Annie vs Sam, but I am not sure trustworthiness across different claims is sufficiently well-correlated in these sorts of situations that it’s a valid inference to make.
This seems like a thing that, even if true, would not lead to any direct evidence? Like presumably the only evidence of the sexual abuse that persists this long is gonna be her memories, Sam Altman’s memories, and maybe other family members memories.
(Or I suppose maybe they could run a PPG test on Sam Altman to better measure his sexuality? But AFAIK such tests are somewhat noisy and basically never performed.)
Yes, I think you raise valid points. Given that Annie’s (purported) sexual abuse occurred so long ago, I agree that it is unlikely that, at this point, direct evidence of Sam’s (purported) sexual abuse of her would be able to gathered.
Deviating a bit from your reply to the more general question of “What direct evidence could be provided (e.g. by Annie) to corroborate the claims Annie is making?”—I do think that a potentially useful piece of evidence that could be provided to corroborate (some of) Annie’s claims would be proof that:
Annie’s father left her money in his will.
Annie did not receive this money, as specified in the will.
I suspect that only the people involved will ever know the truth about the sexual abuse accusation. The claim about money, although in my opinion less serious, seems much easier to investigate. (And then, we can make a probabilistic update about the other claim.)
Other accusations in the article, such as Sam not willing to link a podcast, don’t seem important to me.
Those claims would be nice to know the answer to, though I don’t know that proving those claims would prove the sexual abuse allegations, nor that disproving those claims would disprove the sexual abuse allegations. Obviously one could argue that these claims are evidence about the relative trustworthiness of Annie vs Sam, but I am not sure trustworthiness across different claims is sufficiently well-correlated in these sorts of situations that it’s a valid inference to make.