Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kavanaugh Accuser Ford’s Polygraph Results Released, Raising More Questions

Kavanaugh Accuser Ford’s Polygraph Results Released, Raising More Questions

Only two general questions were asked. Two.

The results of a polygraph test taken by the first Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, were released Wednesday, raising even more questions, and again, calling the question the legitimacy of Ford’s claims.

Only two general questions were asked. Two.

The polygraph results appear to show a discrepancy from Ford’s original claims.

Fox News reports:

Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, on Wednesday released the results of a polygraph examination she took Aug. 7 — but a key detail in the report appears to contradict Ford’s past claims.
The examination, which was administered by former FBI agent Jeremiah Hanafin, took place in a Hilton hotel in Maryland, according to a “Polygraph Examination Report” compiled by Hanafin.

Hanafin first allowed Ford and attorney Lisa Banks to meet alone to formulate a handwritten statement that Ford signed and provided Hanafin when he returned to the room. Then, without Banks present, Hanafin interviewed Ford about the night of the alleged assault, according to the report.

In the handwritten statement, Ford writes that “there were 4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party.

But in Ford’s letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, Ford gave a different tally, writing that the gathering “included me and 4 others.”

The total number of people at the purported party, and their genders, has been a key area of focus for Senate Republicans investigating Ford’s claims. Ford told The Washington Post last week that there were a total of “four boys at the party” where the alleged episode occured, and that two — Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge — had been in the room during her attack. (According to The Post, Ford told her therapist in 2012 that four boys were in the room with her during the alleged attack — a disparity she has blamed on her therapist’s recording of her statements).

The polygraph exam consisted of only two “relevant” questions: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?” (Ordinarily examiners ask a series of irrelevant questions to establish a baseline physiological response, which helps detect deception when relevant questions are asked, experts tell Fox News.)

The test measured “thoracic and abdominal respiration, galvanic skin response, and cardiac activity,” Hanafin wrote in the report.

The former FBI agent then ran the results of Ford’s two “no” responses through three separate scoring algorithms, including one developed by Johns Hopkins University. All three algorithms concluded that Ford’s responses did not indicate apparent deception, with one putting the probability that she was lying at .002 and another putting it at less than .02.

Polygraph tests don’t serve as lie detectors so much as they monitor the body’s physiological response when certain questions are asked. Typically, someone telling the truth will experience heightened heart rate when lying.

But that’s not the only issue raised with the release of the polygraph results.

The polygraph was administered in Maryland. One of the many excuses given for the delay in Ford’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was an aversion to flying from California. So, did Ford drive to Maryland for the polygraph?

Ford is scheduled to testify before the committee Thursday.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I said this in another thread

you can’t make this shit up

Poor crazy woman…

This just beyond parody.

How stupid do you have to be to publicly release this? At least when it wasn’t released they could try to gaslight people about ‘PASSED A POLYGRAPH’.

I recently posted this in a different thread, but it makes sense here, too. Interesting observation from Paul Sperry’s column in the New York Post listing 8 problems with Dr. Ford’s story:

Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either. Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.

The letter attests to her honesty and integrity. “Why didn’t her parents and brothers sign the letter?” a congressional source familiar with the investigation wondered.

Fishstick… said it. You can’t make this up. It’s like the Democrats have come up with the political version of the dirty “Aristocrats” joke starring Kavanaugh.

Having been involved in forensic science for nearly 50 years, I can state categorically that polygraph exams are worse than unreliable. They give a pseudoscientific aura to totally unscientific conclusions. All of the scientific analyses of polygraphy have shown it to be little more reliable than flipping a coin. The long-term spy Aldrich Hazen Ames said that he could not have succeeded as a spy for so long if his superiors had not trusted the many polygraph tests he “passed” (whatever that means, since it’s undefined).

Here is the last word on polygraph tests, for anyone who is interested. It’s an in-depth study by the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. It concludes that the widespread use of the polygraph in government, the military, and law enforcement gives misleading information to those using it, and it often accuses innocent people and gives cover to the actual spies.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to OldProf2. | September 27, 2018 at 1:40 pm

    I have experience with polygraphs, never as a subject however. A polygraph examination consists of a series of questions designed to elicit “base” responses (deviation from which is what is used to determine truth) and these questions are designed to raise and lower the subject’s emotional state. The questions, in order, are read to the subject before the test begins. The idea is that the pulse rate, breathing, etc will change as the subject reaches the “money” question, or questions.

    The truth or falsity of the responses is determined by the operator interpreting the various responses. This is subjective. I have seen where one operator will call a test “inconclusive” where another will read the same data printout and call it “deceptive”. The polyraph works when the subject is convinced that they will be found to be lying and decide to save everyone the time and trouble and confesses to the operator.

    Further adverse info regarding the poly can be found in the prosecution of a former detective (Philadelphia?? -I’ll look for the story) who, for money, coached people on how to pass… tell lies without the machine catching it. The Feds went after him big time and he went to jail for some kind of obstruction violation. That told me that the Feds knew the poly could be beat and had to stifle any effort to make that common knowledge.

      amatuerwrangler in reply to amatuerwrangler. | September 27, 2018 at 6:40 pm

      Found it. It was Oklahoma City, not Philly. he guy’s name is Douglas Williams. If you googl (or other search) for “Doug Williams Polygraph” you will get several items on the subject. Here’s one link to the story.

      I chose it because it didn’t have a pay-wall or a white-list requirement.

      My original thought, and still so, if the poly cannot be “beat” why should the G be concerned about someone teaching how to beat it. Obviously they know it can be beat, and want it stopped.

      I have some experience with polygraphs as well. Double agents for hostile foreign powers are trained in counterpolygraph techniques. Ana Montes, an American citizen, was recruited by the Cubans and received such training before she left DoJ and went to work for the DIA. She passed at least one polygraph.

      Former CIA agent Robert Ames writes that a couple of his colleagues were caught by Cuban state security because Cuban double agents always beat the machine. Naturally since they weren’t caught we don’t know their names, or at least that information hasn’t been made public. But one, Nicolas Sirgado, went public after he returned to Havana. He worked as an analyst for the CIA from 1966 to 1976 and he wrote about it. He passed the polygraph test three times during his ten years at CIA.

      Aldrich Ames (no relation) was perhaps the most damaging traitor ever to spy for the KGB. He exposed the identities of more intelligence assets than any other traitor in CIA history. The KGB scooped them up at an alarming rate. Ames was working at an office jointly operated by the CIA and FBI that monitored the Soviet embassy in Washington, and assessed embassy staff for potential to turn them into double agents for the U.S. And the CIA and FBI let this poor to mediocre performer who was an alcoholic and heavily in debt (they knew about his drinking, at least, and if they didn’t know about his debts that just tells you how piss poor their counterintelligence programs were) actually visit the embassy to “develop contacts!” Of course he intended to spy for the Soviets all along. He began spying in 1985, and passed two polygraph tests after he began working for the KGB.

      He didn’t have any counterpolygraph training, but his handler told him to “just relax” and he beat the machine both times.

      Hillary Clinton has experience with polygraph tests. If you recall a story that came out during the recent campaign when she was working as an attorney in Arkansas she represented a child rapist in the late 70s. Through combination of assassinating the twelve year victim’s character and challenging evidence as law enforcement didn’t maintain a complete chain of custody she got the prosecutor to allow him to plead to a lesser charge and get off with time served. But she also had him take a polygraph, which he passed. She knew he was guilty as sin, and said during the interview that caused her to lose faith in polygraphs forever. There’s an audio tape if you want to hear the witch cackle about in her own words.

      I never thought I’d agree with Clinton on anything but you might as well use a Ouija board or Tarot cards.

      “That told me that the Feds knew the poly could be beat and had to stifle any effort to make that common knowledge.”

      All polygraph examiners know the machine can be beat. Only one state in the union can force a suspect to take a polygraph. Florida can force some people, primarily convicted sex offenders, to take a polygraph test. It’s still not admissible in court and can only be used during the course of their therapy. Other states can’t force people to take the test but they can put a lot of pressure on people.

      The thing is, not even the police examiners will believe their own results. If a suspect fails the test, they will claim it’s proof that thee suspect is lying. If the suspect passes the test they’ll claim the suspect merely beat the polygraph. If the police think the suspect is guilty not even a successful polygraph test will change their minds. What does that tell you about how much confidence they have in the polygraph?

      Every single examiner knows the polygraph can be beat. And the thing is, they can’t spot the counterpolygraph techniques. It’s a joke. I mentioned a couple of DIA/CIA spies that passed their polygraph tests in an earlier comment. Those agencies, as well as other agencies and departments, are lazy and rely on the machine far too much. You’re not going to catch a real spy. Frankly, falling in love with the box and relying almost exclusively on it is a threat to national security. Junk science makes for junk security.

I checked/verified this on maps.. it was an airport hotel.

AN AIRPORT HOTEL.. Hilton Baltimore BWI Airport.

Ok, I read that on twitter too, but the address checks out.

People do stay at airport hotels without flying. I’ve done it many times.

But this whole thing is ridiculous. Polygraphs belong in the same category as phrenology and astrology.

I don’t want to pile on the victim (no pun intended) but it strikes me as odd that in the written statement the name Kavanaugh was started after Brett but the scratched out, why? Hasn’t the media and the accusers handlers insisted she be referred to as Dr. Blasey-Ford? Does she go by Blasey-Ford of just Blasey as she signed on the written statement? Seems small, maybe it is, yet the inconsistencies are odd for someone with a PhD, IMO.

    Arminius in reply to WillS68. | September 28, 2018 at 8:06 am

    “…it strikes me as odd that in the written statement the name Kavanaugh was started after Brett but the scratched out, why?”

    Oh, I can tell you why. The statement she gave to the polygraph examiner is dated August 7, 2018 (as best as I can make out her chicken scratch). The letter she sent to Feinstein is dated July 30, 2018. So in the earlier letter she identified Kavanaugh as her assailant. But she wasn’t willing to say it was Kavanaugh when she was hooked up ot the machine.

    That tells me that she isn’t sure if it was Kavanaugh, or worse perhaps knows the boy she knew as Brett isn’t Kavanaugh. And her attorneys and their friendly, cooperative, bought-and-paid-for polygraph examiner didn’t want her to fail the test. So they accommodated Prof. Ford no doubt believes polygraphs work and needed to put in less information she previously provided to Sen. Feinstein. And her examiner knew he couldn’t ask for specific details because she’d fail, and that’s not what her attorneys pay him for.

Let’s get this straight: according to her own statement, Dr. Ford was locked in a bedroom, assaulted by two or three males, one of whom was on top of her, trying to rip her clothes off, one of the other males jumped on the two of them three times in succession, but because of the bathing suit (where had she been swimming/sunbathing? with whom?) she had on underneath whatever street clothes she was wearing, the initial attacker (allegedly Judge Kavanagh) couldn’t get her undressed, after the third jump by the third male, she managed to get free, got out through the door that had been locked before (how?) ran across the hall without shouting for help, locked herself in the bathroom, and with her clothing suddenly intact was later able to get out of the bathroom and leave the house (where was everybody? they had been very drunk before) without saying anything or her escape being impeded, and somehow—she never says how, and apparently doesn’t remember—got home, where she said nothing to anyone, and none of her family noticed anything. Her clothes weren’t torn, her face bore no signs of injury, she wasn’t flustered or otherwise seem upset, nothing was odd about her return. (At fifteen, she was too young to drive, remember.) She remembers the assault vividly, but not where it took place, or when. She never says anything to anyone, not even to her friend who was at the party, and doesn’t warn anyone to stay away from that Kavanaugh boy and his friends. She enters the field of psychology, and suffers major aftereffects from her trauma, but never has any therapy where this is discussed, until couples therapy with her husband in 2012, thirty years later. It’s just possible, I guess, but the improbabilities accumulate.

Does it strike anyone else that her handwritten account seems rather like the account of a vivid bad dream? Such as those one is encouraged to relate to one’s therapist? She is somewhere, she’s not sure where. Only a few boys and perhaps a girl are there, and she recognizes all of them. She is thrust (how?) into a room which is locked. Two boys attack her and throw her down on a bed, and clamp a hand over her mouth so that she is unable to cry out. They are laughing and trying to get her clothes off but can’t, because of her bathing suit. They fall off her and she gets free, somehow. A locked door is suddenly open, and without saying anything she locks herself in a bathroom . . . later, she makes an exit, and—the account ends. How many of these transitional elements are supplied subsequently in trying to recall the narrative, to make sense of it? This is how dreams often work. I’m not saying that this account was necessarily made up out of whole cloth; she may have been attacked by someone somewhere, or have been afraid of being attacked. It may well have had some profound effect on her. Years later, in trying to put together the pieces, there are images in her mind . . . As she discusses it with her therapist and her husband, the certainty grows—’Yes! That is how it must have happened. That clown Kavanaugh must have been the perpetrator! That is why I have such a virulent fear of conservatives!’

This mental process is behind millions of memories of events that people mis-remember, or imagine and come to think were real. Mistaken identity is at the root of many positive identifications in legal proceedings, identifications that turn out to have been impossible. Before one gives her account even the ‘credence’ of an unverifiable claim, one must first know how she came to recall it, and how many times she has been through it with others (including lawyers) trying to clarify the fuzzy parts. Until then, I fear that #MeToo or not, that prep-school boy who grew up to be a federal judge must be given the benefit of the doubt, rather than his accuser.

    Walker Evans in reply to HarvardPhD. | September 27, 2018 at 4:15 am

    She spent six days with a team of lawyers; at the end of those six days she emerged with her memory miraculously restored. That still doesn’t explain why a female in college continually (at least ten times by her own admission) attended parties with high school boys where alcohol and “gang rapes” were the norm. A rational person would presume that, if true, she would never have gone back even once … unless drunken parties with lots of sex were what she wanted.

    Not saying that was the case, but her actions in returning to these debaucheries once she knew their character raises a lot of questions for me.