Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Conclusion: “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account”

Conclusion: “The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account”

Rachel Mitchell analyzes Christine Blasey Ford’s claims: “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

The examination of Christine Blasey Ford by Arizona Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell failed as a television event, but revealed many important details, casting serious doubt on Ford’s claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982.

Mitchell has now produced a detailed analysis, and it devastates Ford’s credibility and reliability.

The full analysis including timeline (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of the post.

While Ford superficially was “credible” in the sense that she came across as believing what she said, her own story relied on four other people being present that night at the house. All four of those people (including Kavanaugh) have denied any memory or knowledge of the party. To me that’s fatal to Ford’s story.

I wrote after her testimony, but before Kavanaugh testified, Christine Blasey Ford believes an untruth:

I think Ford has convinced herself she experienced what she experienced, but the need to inject psychological terminology makes me conclude that it is a memory that, while believed, is not necessarily the way the rest of us remember things.

Ford has refused to share her therapist notes, even though she shared some of them with the Washington Post. The 2012 couples therapy is the first time she claims to have told anyone about the assault. Kavanaugh’s name is not mentioned in the notes, which reflect Ford said there were four assailants, not two as she now claims.

As I wrote before, Ford’s therapist notes may be the key to this case, Kavanaugh Accuser’s couples therapy records, partially leaked to WaPo, may hold the key:

It seems odd for an alleged sexual assault victim to volunteer psychiatric records, particularly since the odious “nuts and sluts” defense so frequently is used against accusers. And why were only selective portions shared? This seems particularly calculating and defensively preemptive.

My gut tells me the therapy records hold a key to what did or did not happen here. Having voluntarily shared a part of those records with a newspaper, it’s hard for Ford to argue confidentiality….

Without the full couples therapy records Ford already partially shared with the Washington Post, I’m not sure we’ll ever really know how and why this allegedly repressed memory was recovered, or whether it actually is a memory.

Ford came across during her testimony as someone with deep emotional problems, which may or may not be related to the alleged assault and Kavanaugh.

Mitchell went through these factors and more. Here is her conclusion:

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Here are some key observations, each of which Mitchell supports with detailed analysis:

➡ Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened

➡ Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

➡ When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.

➡ Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

➡ Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.

➡ Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

➡ Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

➡ Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

➡ The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

That last point is critical. Ford tailored her testimony to the developing political drama. The four extra days she obtained to prepare by falsely claiming, through her attorneys, that she was too scared to take an airplane, clearly were used to prep her story in anticipation of problems.

There was one moment in Ford’s testimony that still bothers me, and may have been a clue that she is not how she attempted to portray herself. I wrote after her testimony:

Ford basically accused her best friend Leland Keyser of submitting a false statement about the party not happening. She said Leland has health problems and just wanted her lawyer to take care of it. Mitchell never followed up on this bombshell. Incompetent.

That Ford turned on her lifelong friend this way says perhaps more about Ford’s credibility than anything else that happened today.

I was willing to give Ford the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she honestly believed something that was false. I’m not willing to do that anymore.

—————————-

Analysis of Christine Ford Allegations and Timeline (Rachel Mitchell, Nominations Investigative Counsel) by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I was willing to give Ford the benefit of the doubt

Whatever for?

After her fables about flying, it’s pretty clear she’s a liar. As well as a fruitcake. She hasn’t earned any benefits at all.

    AmandaFitz in reply to tom_swift. | October 1, 2018 at 9:06 am

    Dr. Jacobson,
    It takes one to know one, and as a 69 year old woman (and a moderately attractive one in high school and college), I knew this woman was lying from the moment she began “testifying.” I also went to Holton-Arms, but in my day, smoking in the woods or in taxis was our biggest excitement.

    Dr. Ford was acting when she portrayed herself as STILL a naive, girlish “cute” blonde who cannot be responsible for recalling information, and I imagine she has used that “persona” with her family for DECADES, to get what she wants and to get them to believe her version of whatever events are causing controversy. I’d love to ask her brothers if she’s used this modus operandi before! I suspect they’ve seen this “movie” before and have no defenses against it with their parents.

    Every so often, she’d show flashes of the 51 year old PROFESSIONAL WOMAN that she actually is, and it was incongruent with her 15 year old valley girl persona that she had adopted.

    No one has the stones to say the truth- that this woman was lying- most women ACTUALLY KNOW that she was- and she was good at it.

    I STAND WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH!

      Amanda-I agree with your comment that Ford appeared to be much more fragile and vulnerable that her education and experience would suggest. She is a married 52 years old mother, and a PhD. That means she has at least defended a thesis and a dissertation. She has authored or co-authored numerous articles for publication, as well as taught in a classroom. Yet, she appeared more vulnerable and fragile than most high school students. I am a 55+ year old professional, who has worked in government, in law, and in the military. Approximately 50% of my co-workers during that time were female I can not think of a single co-worker in the last 35 years who was or even appeared as immature and/or fragile as Ms. Ford did at that hearing.

        Virginia42 in reply to CV60. | October 1, 2018 at 12:02 pm

        It does make me wonder. If I’d defended my dissertation using that clueless, halfwit tone she did, I’d have been toast–as would anybody else save perhaps somebody getting a degree in Human Awareness studies or something.

      Elzorro in reply to AmandaFitz. | October 1, 2018 at 9:38 am

      Me too she is an arch criminal. I see prison in her future. Prisons are full of brilliant criminals. LOL.

      I agree with you wholeheartedly. She was not at all credible and I too have been saying all along that she was lying. Also, her performance was cringe-worthy.

      alaskabob in reply to AmandaFitz. | October 1, 2018 at 11:48 am

      My wife caught her transition during testimony from cutsy little girl mode to when she flipped her glasses up, straightened up and glanced to her right with what my wife saw as the adult vindictive female. My wife has her own chilling stories from college and AFA days in Colorado Springs. She has no time for Ford’s antics.

      olhardhead in reply to AmandaFitz. | October 1, 2018 at 1:14 pm

      Amanda, you mentioned her family. What do you think about this:

      https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/09/29/why-have-christine-blasey-fords-parents-siblings-remained-silent-amid-public-outpouring-of-support/

      Joe Degenova said these things on sept 27th…have you heard this?
      Looks like her Dad may have “sent her away”….That should pretty much end this crap show doncha think?

    amwick in reply to tom_swift. | October 1, 2018 at 9:25 am

    So who actually made up the story about fear of flying, was it Ford or her attorneys? (not defending her, no way)

      MAB in reply to amwick. | October 1, 2018 at 10:26 am

      Her attorneys because they wanted her to appear in public.

      Joe-dallas in reply to amwick. | October 1, 2018 at 12:21 pm

      For a quasi legal proceeding/testifying before the senate committee, She seemed totally unaware of any of the issues associated with the logistics of the testimony. Everytime I am involved in any form of testimony, expert witness, litigation of any sort, I am generally up to speed with most all aspects of the logistics of the case (at least as it pertains to my part).

      ie not knowing what a polygraph does, not knowing about offer to testify in CA, fear of flying, not aware of the any other logistical issues.

    Edward in reply to tom_swift. | October 1, 2018 at 10:23 am

    I think the Professor was speaking of his willingness to grant her the benefit of the doubt as to her truthfulness before the hearing. His willingness to do so evaporated with her testimony.

Well, time to get the crackers:

“Charles ‘Chad’ Ludington and Brett Kavanaugh were classmates at Yale. They socialized together, Ludington says.

Ludington is an associate professor of history at N.C. State University. On Sunday, he issued a statement about Kavanaugh in which he referred to the judge as “a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker,” in college. He said he felt it was his “civic duty” to tell people about his experience drinking with Kavanaugh.”

Oh, but it gets better:

http://www.technicianonline.com/arts_entertainment/article_768c9d0c-9ad2-11e4-bc4c-8b19f0b1bd02.html

According to technicianonline,Currently, Ludington is researching a global history of cheddar cheese, attempting to figure out why cheddar cheese became synonymous with cheese in the minds of so many people in the English-speaking world.

My guess is that Kavanaugh ran in to this guy at a party and Kavanaugh put this bore in his place. Give me a break.

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 9:14 am

    This loser is from Columbia University! More fake media hysteria. What a cheese for brain loser. Any bets he has a male partner?

    Charles Ludington received his undergraduate history degree from Yale University and his master’s and doctoral degrees from Columbia University.

      MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 9:54 am

      Not sure but it looks like Ludington is married to Sarah Ludington (Sarah Hutt Ludington) but I can not confirm that.

      She is an attorney that worked for Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington D.C. The same firm that Seth P Waxman worked for.

      https://directory.campbell.edu/people/sarah-ludington/

      Waxman was the Solicitor General of the United States. He was nominated by President Clinton on September 19, 1997.

      Starting to look like another hit job by the Clintons.

    RodFC in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 10:27 am

    He says Judge K got someone thrown in jail for a fight. Where’s the arrest report?

    DanJ1 in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 11:10 am

    “Frequent and heavy drinker” would disqualify pretty much the entire college I went to in the early 80’s. I was frequent and heavy, but there were people (men and women) who drank a whole lot more and more often that I did. With that perspective would I be lying if I claimed to not drink that much?

    dmi60ex in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 11:24 am

    Mark
    and others

    Did everyone notice he never said he had seen or was told
    Kavanaugh blacked out only that he can’t ( deny the possibility)?

    And if he was the aggressor in the altercation why was the other student arrested and not Kavanaugh???

They are all going down if the public records are real.
http://www.tapwires.com/2018/09/30/more-lies-fords-stanford-bio-page-altered-entire-story-is-a-lie-heres-proof

Here is Joe Hofts report yesterday showing photos and records. They do not look fake but who knows?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/this-doesnt-look-good-business-was-listed-operating-out-of-christine-fords-home-would-explain-second-door/

These records are admissible and a slam dunk if real. Anybody know?

    MarkSmith in reply to Elzorro. | October 1, 2018 at 9:24 am

    Not sure why you are posting this. The first line talks about her not showing up as a Dr. of Psychiatry in California records.

    She never was nor likely never listed herself as that. A dr. of Psychiatry requires a medical degree, which she never had so there is no story here.

    The second door link seems to be something to follow up on. Others have posted that the permit to put the door in was something like 2008, so her 2012 statement at therapy session would make sense, but then the conflict about the door is what lead to the therapy session in the first place, not that the door happened after the fact.

    I am guessing Ford has a sever anxiety disorder likely increased by something (but not Kavanaugh) in her childhood. Funny Uncle, brothers friend? I am guessing the condition might even run in her family.

    Sadly, she is messed up and being used by the Democrats.

      Elzorro in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 9:32 am

      I am looking at the public records that Hoft lists. They are a smoking gun if real. It is very possible. Slam Dunk Killer. Rule 902 makes them admissible PF evidence. it is easy to get them fromhomeinfomax.com and Santa Clara County is covered in the system. She would have no defense. The stupid social justice lawyer Katz would never have thought of it.

      Elzorro in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 9:34 am

      Also they can not be scrubbed or altered like everything else. They almost got away with it?

Close The Fed | October 1, 2018 at 9:07 am

Professor, thank you for embedding the document. I tried to read it on twitter but it was much too small.

    Don’t you just hate those authors who write about a document which has been made public, and then include a twitter posting of the document. Try clicking on the document to see something actually large enough to read and you get the twitter page with another too small to read image. What is so hard about including the document, as the Prof has done, or at least giving a link to an actual copy of the document (which had to be posted somewhere for someone to include it in their twitter feed).

      Valerie in reply to Edward. | October 1, 2018 at 10:51 am

      Some people don’t have the skilz, or they attache what they found, not the underlying document. It’s is annoyingly common.

In addition to the inconsistencies in her testimony, there are a couple of more minor points that indicate she was engaged in deception. An interesting analysis of her body language during her congressional testimony is here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/5uv6SHt1Z5Gm/ The observer notes a couple of points: 1) She was sniffling and on the verge of crying, yet never needed a tissue: 2) She never gave visual indications that she was accessing her memory, such as rolling her eyes up. Rather, she just appeared to provide rote answers to questions; 3) She appeared to hold her chin down in an effort to artificially change the sound of her voice to sound more stressed. I also note that the second door on her house that she claimed was as the result of her fears of being trapped as a result of the attack appear to be false. Apparently, the second door was added to her home as a result of a 2008 modification that added an additional bedroom and bath, likely for renters, such as the Google interns she and her husband host. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-christine-ford-caught-in-major-lie-photos-prove-house-updates-occurred-much-earlier-than-senate-testimony/ When combined with the clear deception regarding flying out for testimony, the evidence seems to be that Ford was actively engaged in deception.

    CV60 in reply to CV60. | October 1, 2018 at 9:33 am

    One correction: I noted that Ms. Ford never needed a tissue. That should be corrected to say she never appeared to need to clear the mucus. She coughed, sniffled, or otherwise indicate that she was truly on the verge of crying. Compare her performance with Judge Kavanaugh, who clearly was on the verge of crying, and was taking frequent sips of water to disguise the fact (as well as sniffling, etc).

    CV60 in reply to CV60. | October 1, 2018 at 9:35 am

    One correction: I noted that Ms. Ford never needed a tissue. That should be corrected to say she never appeared to need to clear the mucus. She never coughed, sniffled, or otherwise indicate that she was truly on the verge of crying. Compare her performance with Judge Kavanaugh, who clearly was on the verge of crying, and was taking frequent sips of water to disguise the fact (as well as sniffling, etc).

TY, Prof. WAJ

TOTALLY agree with Jacobsen here. Until I read this analysis, I though Ford was a troubled woman who has some kind of bad experience. Now,reading how she changed her story hourly to match anything about Kavanaugh’s records tells me she is an out and out LIAR!!! Thanks Lady for making women’s lives so much harder. AND for promoting the war on men.

Quit ‘guessing’ this or that about the woman. The claim was risible on its face. Why entertain her ridiculous story at all? Women don’t lie? Whoever told that whopper needs to join the science fiction writers of America. You don’t hear about false rape accusations because most are never prosecuted. ‘It looks bad,’ ‘She’s been punished enough,’ ‘She needs help’ are all excuses I’ve heard.

Nobody had the nut sack to say, ‘No, just no. Go away skank.’ When Feinstein first trotted out her clown show memo. No time, no place, no day, month, or year. No participants, no witnesses, never reported, lies on top of lies. Nobody can say, ‘Nope, you’re lying.’

At the most they tentatively say, ‘It was someone else, she’s mistaken.’ Due process, assumption of innocence, reasonable person standards are all out the window.

Every single day it becomes clearer the swamp, including Flake et.al. will do anything to stop Trump, to thwart America. It is raw naked war. We’re losing.

    Actually no, the meme being pushed is that you must believe survivors (without entertaining the possibility that they may be lying for any number of reasons).

Not to mention the fake glasses.
Why did she not want to release videos of her polygraph? Probably because the video shows a different personna than she projected at the hearings.

I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case…

Hey, wasn’t there some high profile politician that was “cleared” by the FBI of doing something nefarious, with this argument, so she could run for a high office?

    rinardman in reply to rinardman. | October 1, 2018 at 10:00 am

    Okay, that could be taken the wrong way, from the point I was meaning to make. Which is, I can see the drive-by media seeing this analysis by Ms. Mitchell and saying she can’t make that judgement, that’s not the way it works.

    Except if it’s done by a Dimocrat operative like Comey.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to rinardman. | October 1, 2018 at 10:59 am

    I think that is how it is done, in the broad-brush version.

    The statement of the victim along with the supporting evidence, and the statement of the accused (if there is one) are presented to the prosecutor by the investigating entity. The prosecutor evaluates it to see if it meets the standard for prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt for criminal, preponderance of evidence for civil. If the appropriate standard is met, charges are filed, if not they are declined. Depending on what is lacking, the prosecutor might send the investigator away with a “shopping list” of items necessary to make it a prosecutable case. “Come back when we have a good case…” rings in the ears of many an investigator.

    The Dems brought their “victim” statement and zero corroborating evidence and still expect an “arrest and conviction”.

4th armored div | October 1, 2018 at 9:56 am

Repressed memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressed_memory

without corporation Ford’s testimony is less than useless.

without the notes of her therapist this is a baseless charge.

BTW – where was her husband and parents – Ford is a KooKoo bird.

    DaveGinOly in reply to 4th armored div. | October 1, 2018 at 3:28 pm

    It’s not even necessary to appeal to “repressed memory.” Every time you take a memory out of storage and consider it, recount it, analyze it, when you put it away, you may have altered it. Given encouragement to “remember” a memory a certain way, your memory can be altered to fit a story that someone else wants to tell. And you will think it a genuine memory. (Not that this is necessarily the case with Dr. Ford – just sayin’.)

I’ve brought this up before – This is not a she said/he said. It’s only a she said. A she said/he said is when two people agree something happened but have differing accounts. Like “He hit me” vs. “She bumped into the car door”. This is “He sexually assaulted me, attempted rape, attacked me, and might have committed murder if I hadn’t managed to get away even though nobody can corroborate any of this” vs. “I wasn’t there, have no idea what she’s talking about and have about 100 people who will back me up”. He literally has no defense because his only defense is that he has no idea what she’s talking about. There is no perspective to begin from.

    guyjones in reply to DanJ1. | October 1, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    That’s a great point; I hadn’t considered that. You’re absolutely right. One can’t fairly call a dispute “He-said, she-said,” if one of the alleged participants disputes that the event ever occurred.

Treehouse reporting:

BR8KING : The #Safeway store that #DrFord claims to have gone to in 1982 after the attempted rape, didn’t open until 1986 … #KavanaughConfirmation

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 11:20 am

    I am second guessing the safeway post, Safeway expands:

    1928 Sanitary Grocery (incl. some Piggly Wiggly) 429 grocery stores; 67 meat markets Washington D.C. and Virginia

    dmi60ex in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 11:39 am

    Mark that was debunked it was sold to a new owner in 1986 it opened in 1969

      MarkSmith in reply to dmi60ex. | October 1, 2018 at 2:22 pm

      Yea, that is why I second guessed it. Same goes for the door on the house. No reason to believe that that decision might have happened before they were in couple therapy and that was one of those issues that came up in the session in 2012. Doesn’t make her statement in 2012 invalid.

      Anyone that has been married knows how wives bring up things for 20 years ago that happened in their dreams and they still blame you for looking at the red head.

        DaveGinOly in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2018 at 3:40 pm

        There once was a woman named Mun
        Who clobbered her boyfriend in fun.
        She said “Don’t worry hun
        It’s nothing you did,
        Just something I dreamed that you done.”

          DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 1, 2018 at 3:54 pm

          I read that ditty decades ago. Until recently it was a repressed memory. Here’s how it really went (just recalled):

          There once was a woman named Mun,
          Who clobbered her boyfriend in fun.
          She said “Don’t worry kid,
          It’s nothing you did,
          Just something I dreamed that you done.”

          Unfortunately I don’t recall the author’s name.

One aspect of her “Testimony” that did not ring true to me was when she said that she just sneaked out of the party without telling her best friend. So she is at a party with one other girl and four drinking boys and claims to have almost been raped by one or two of them and leaves her best friend to fend for herself? Have you ever seen a party where one girl goes to the powder room by herself? Imagine that same party where there are only two girls! Do you think she would go to the upstairs powder room by herself and then sneak out? Why wouldn’t she have used the downstairs powder room? There is a very good article on American Thinker that suggests that she went upstairs with two boys for whatever reason and then they laughed at her once she changed her mind. That is what haunts her more than anything is the laughter. Do you think the remaining girl who is now the only girl with four drinking boys would not remember that? Her school was known for its excessive drinking and they even had a game called Passout! Do you suppose someone might ask her if she ever played that game?

After watching and reading about this recovered repressed memory, I keep coming back to Freud’s writing on Screen Memory. If Ford’s testimony is not a concoction of lies prepared by Democrat party operatives, then it is likely to be a memory that was fabricated by her mind to express something else, and should not be taken at face value. Either way, there is nothing credible about her testimony and all this amounts to is the Drive-By media along with Democrats inflicting as much damage as possible before everyone finds out too late that it was without substance.

While it is nice to have Mitchell’s analysis of Ford’s testimony and complaint, it was hardly necessary. All her testimony did was to highlight further inconsistencies in her story.

The story has never been about Kavanaugh. His account of the incident has been consistent, it never happened as reported. All of the “witnesses” named by Ford, failed to corroborate any of her story. Her attorneys led the world to believe that Ford could not attend the hearings as she was afraid to fly from California to DC, even though she flies regularly and was on the East Coast, near DC, during part of that time. This has all the earmarks of a manufactured political hit on Kavanaugh. Yet, the MSM [NeoPravda] ignores this and continues to attempt to make the case against Kavanaugh.

This is the story. Americans can not trust the traditional organs which oversaw American politics and government to do that job honestly, then this nation is in serious, serious trouble. This undisguised, partisan participation in this ideological and political war further divides the citizenry. It was a similar divide which led to the American Civil War.

She seemed heavily coached and manipulated in her statements and testimony, and even then her story didn’t hold together. The little girl voice was clearly meant to tug on the emotions of some, but just seemed false and contrived to others. I didn’t see any genuine moments of emotional trauma as she recounted this incident. It is still uncertain if the recalled memory actually happened or is just a projection of political beliefs and the coaching of others.

About 22 years ago my wife told me about her best friend being raped by a teacher when her friend was 15.

However this womans best friend didn’t know a thing about this having happened?

You know Im all for “well everyone is different” but her story right from the get go just didn’t sit right. It felt contrived right from the start and the longer it goes on the more and more rediculous the claims that are being made against Kavanaugh. Its gotten to the point Im surprised he hasn’t been fingered as the second gun man on the grassy knoll!

I know enough about myself to know that I can fall for a clever liar. I have enough experience to know that girls lie, too. I am too well acquainted with the vagaries of memory.

So, I am stuck with the notion that witness testimony must be corroborated. In reaching this conclusion, I have very good company, for the vast number of judges, juries, prosecutors and defenders tend to agree with me.

For me, testimony may be credible as in it may be an emotionally satisfying story, without making the resulting claim credible.

I watched Ford’s testimony uncritically. Other people have made good points about the way she behaved. I was busy comparing what she said with what it what is needed for me to believe that she was telling the objective truth, as opposed to something she may or may not believe is true.

I noticed that Ford’s story, like her social history, had been scrubbed of any kind of information relating to time and place that would be useful for another person to establish an alibi, to the extent she could include the details of the interior of a house, and yet not say who lived in the house, how she got there, or how she got home, or who took her home, or what happened to her girlfriend. That put me in the quandary of having to explain how she was familiar with the layout including the upstairs, perhaps through repeat visits, and yet did not know who lived there.

Her account reads and sounds like the original insurance company press release for the McDonald’s Coffee case. In that case, the losing insurance company wrote up a press release that failed to contain the facts upon which a jury could make an award. The story cause a huge outcry against our crazy judicial system, until the Wall Street Journal sent a couple of reporters to the local courthouse to find out what had really happened. Their fuller story was enlightening, to say the least. Not only were the facts bad for McDonald’s, but the attorneys representing McDonald’s had committed misconduct during the litigation.

I know the kind of lawyers who would pull that scrubbing trick. I know the trick was in play, because somebody did a very good job of both editing her story and getting rid of her social media information well in advance of this hearing.

There is a lot more to this story, and someone has gone to great lengths to deprive us of it.

Legal advice given to perpetuate a crime or fraud is not covered by attorney-client privilege.

    alaskabob in reply to Valerie. | October 1, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    When Ford mentioned hosting Google interns….using THAT door.

    It has been noted that scrubbing can take time and some sophistication. Enter Google…either directly or aided with or without their approval by the interns?

    Too many intersecting interests at play. This is not a small operation …. Reminds me of Shepard Book’s warning to Mal in Serenity….definitely not “palms up”.

      murkyv in reply to alaskabob. | October 1, 2018 at 1:35 pm

      I opined about that the day I heard her social media presence was scrubbed.

      It was too well and too quickly hidden to be done by someone outside of those entities.

“This is in short, the most vile, treacherous event in the history of American politics.”

This is bad, I admit, but Harry Reid lying in front of Congress wehn he claimed that he had Mitt Romney’s tax returns and swore that Romney hadn’t paid taxes in a decade was and is still HUGE especially when combined with Candy Crowley’s complicity. It’s part of why we have Trump now though.

Also, we can’t forget that this isn’t the court of law. If beyond a reasonable doubt pushes 100% certainty and preponderance of evidence is somewhere between 50% and 99%, in the eyes of Dems in Congress and the liberal leftist media, a guilty verdict is as low as 1%.

The Left: “Believe all women!!”

The Right: “I believe Rachel Mitchell.”

The Left: “She’s f*cking lying an bought and paid for by the GOP!”

Does anyone know for certain if Ford’s ill-fitting eyeglasses were a stage prop, or, if she actually does use corrective lenses?

If so, the fact that she would appear wearing eyeglasses, solely as an image-shaping/enhancing accoutrement, is not insignificant, in my view.

Someone who undertakes an affected appearance and persona that is not their own, as a means to help convey a narrative, is someone for whom truth and facts can also be massaged, altered and dispensed with.

    alaskabob in reply to guyjones. | October 1, 2018 at 11:57 pm

    I too noticed that. At first I thought fully fake but now maybe reading glasses. Still, wearing reading glasses all the time would blur everything distant including the senators. My wife also felt they were ill fitting.

    They do enlarge the eyes a little in her little girl lost mode. I believe they were there to also give her the professional/professorial look. It is one thing to have nice dress, hair and makeup but faking glasses this way is deception. But we are talking about handlers want to control to setting. (Think Kennedy Nixon debate where optics won for Kennedy).

    There is one paper she “co-authored” although down in the “et al” area on hypnosis in therapy. This begs the question of self-hypnosis or hypnosis by the therapist to recover lost memories. That is a game changer and after releasing part of her notes, she should not be protected from full release. Those notes are absolutely needed!!!! Since the “door” part of the released notes is now high suspect, her presentation is getting very shakey.

      guyjones in reply to alaskabob. | October 2, 2018 at 12:11 am

      I think you may be right, inasmuch as Ford was going for the “professorial” and erudite professional look, but, to my mind, the way the specs magnified her eyes and just generally appeared decidedly un-stylish, upped the “kook” quotient, significantly.

Another odd thing. She testified that she had been practicing swimming or diving before the party, yet she also said she was wearing her swimsuit under her clothing. Wet?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend