American Elephants


Slowly, Slowly, the Truth is Coming Out by The Elephant's Child

The more one reviews accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, the worse it gets — as I expressed in the previous post. There’s the little girl “up-talk”— the last syllable at the end of a sentence goes higher in tone. It’s another little girl thing. She’s just so unsure, she needs help to recall, doesn’t name anyone who can verify her memories.

I cannot imagine how anyone who talks like that could be a professor at a university and at Stanford Medical School. Nobody would take her seriously. Yet she seems so wounded, that it’s easy for viewers to take her defenseless little girl pose as the plaintive plea of a wronged woman, and assume that she is credible.

She pretends that she doesn’t understand the questions, needing more time to reply. When we first heard from her, she didn’t really know who it was, only that someone got on top of her and put his hand over her mouth. Then she was suddenly absolutely clear that it was Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge.  All four of her confirming witnesses did not confirm her story. At Breitbart, John Nolte explores the veracity of her testimony with devastating results.

Christina Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she began having memories of her abuse returned when she and her husband put, at her demand, a second front door on their house. She said she had never told anyone about anything until May 2012 when she went to couples counseling.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

The second front door was already installed by March 2011, perhaps earlier,  and apparently installed as a door to an office where she had a private business called The Couples Resource Center.

According to information found on the Internet, a business was located at the exact same address as the Ford house (please note that the address of this house was released on the Internet weeks ago). The Couples Resource Center was located at the exact same location as the Ford’s home.

Michael Walsh takes on the profession of journalism as it relates to Ford, and the media does not come off well.

Victor Davis Hanson summed it all up nicely in a single paragraph:

The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.

The descriptions of the house, what one can hear of people going up and downstairs , she contradicts herself. Supposedly her friend Leland drove her home, but Leland denies the whole thing, says she never encountered Kavanaugh at all, and has no knowledge of the party. Ford reports proudly of her polygraph, (her lawyers made her do it) and neither the lawyers nor herself as a practicing psychologist should be unaware of the limitations of polygraphs.

And at Powerline, John Hinderaker comments on the smear:

Brett Kavanaugh enjoys one of the most spotless reputations of anyone in American public life. He has been enthusiastically endorsed by those who have known him all his life–by girls he knew in high school and college, by judges he has served with, by professors and students and Harvard and Yale law schools, by judges who have worked with him, by his judicial clerks–most of whom have been women–by the American Bar Association, by sitting Supreme Court justices. In short, everyone who has ever known or dealt with Brett Kavanaugh endorses him.

I think that Judge Kavanaugh’s pristine reputation is one reason why the Democrats have unleashed against him a smear campaign unparalleled in American history. This is the message they are trying to send: If we can do this to the Boy Scout Brett Kavanaugh, we can do it to anyone. Are you thinking of serving in a Republican administration? Or accepting an appointment to the federal judiciary from a Republican president? Think twice, and then think again.

Nope, I don’t believe a word of it, including her claim that she was sexually abused. Her story just falls apart.

Advertisements

1 Comment so far
Leave a comment

About the polygraph:
Erroneously referred to as “lie-detectors, they fo not measure truth, but bodily reactions. It usually takes a minimum of 30-40 questions, cross referenced, and sometimes multiple tests, to make a determination of veracity. Pulse, breathing, and blood pressure are among the things measured.
Frequently mentioned is the fact that polygraph results are not admissible in courtrooms. In some states, they cannot be used in ANY official capacity at all (such as employment screening). The biggest reason? People vary. I’ve known people who can’t pass a polygraph, no matter how truthful they are. And there are others who simply cannot “fail” one (I am one of these – since a polygraph measures physiological reactions, if those reactions match what they consider “truthful”, you pass. I was part of a demonstration of this once. I was given number of polygraphs, including a couple where I was supposed to be “untruthful”, i.e., deliberately fail, and I couldn’t.). And Dr. Ford is a psychology instructor; she would know how to beat one.
Dr. Blasey Ford’s polygraph, if published reports are correct, is so unusual as to be useless. She was reportedly only asked two questions, without the establishment of a baseline, and they were essentially the same question asked two different ways: “Is the statement you’ve given truthful?”, and “Is the statement you’ve given in any way false?”. There are multiple mark-ups on the polygraph statement (the affidavit that is used to formulate the questions asked during the polygraph). With the two questions being the only ones recorded, in my mind it means that multiple tests were administered. That would explain the inconsistencies in her letter to Diane Feinstein (the one requesting confidentiality), her comments made to the Washington Post, and the polygraph statement.
Essentially, it seems that the sole purpose of her taking the polygraph was simply to be able to say she took one. The methodology used to administer her polygraph is unknown, so they would be unable to duplicate it.
Dr. Ford’s polygraph test is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

Liked by 1 person

Comment by Lon Mead




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: