Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Christine Ford: Reliable Denials and Accusations

A Reliable Denial is a classification in Statement Analysis. The opposite is an Unreliable Denial. Many analysts and investigators use "not reliable" when they suspect the subject is innocent, yet has not brought himself to make a reliable denial. 

A Reliable Denial has three components:

1. The pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb "did not" (or "didn't"). Only Reid differentiates between the two. This is not supported by findings. 
3. The allegation addressed. 

If the subject adds or subtracts to this formula, the denial is no longer "Reliable" though it does not, by itself, indicate deception. 

If a subject fulfills all three and is asked why he should be believed and says, "I told the truth" or "I am telling the truth", it is 99% likely to be accurate. 

Let's look at elements 2 and  3 and denials, especially in the current Supreme Court nomination accusation. 

"Did you ever assault Christine Ford?"

"I never assaulted Christine Ford." 

The response is not reliable or technically, "Unreliable." This is because "never" is to avoid a specific time of the allegation. Lance Armstrong did not say "I did not take PEDs" but used "never" repeatedly.  

Also note that the answer will be influenced by the question using "ever", which is an error on the part of the interviewer/investigator. 

In many interviews, the investigator strongly believed the subject did not "do it", but needed to continue to get the subject to freely speak, in order to obtain it. 

"I did not harm the child" in a child homicide interview shows that the subject changed murder or killing, to "harm." This is Unreliable. We also hear this in child sexual molestation statements because the abuser did not, in his own subjective dictionary, did not "harm" (or physically injure) the victim. 

In some interviews where I did not believe the subject "did it", the subject needed more questions to psychologically close the gap" between him and the allegation. In Employment theft, I use,

"You have been accused of taking the missing money.  How do you respond?"

I avoid  the morally charged, "stealing" because thieves do not "steal"; they "balance the account, reimburse" etc.  

"Oh, I didn't realize you were accusing me.  I didn't take the money."

I ask, "Why should I believe you?" and have heard,

"I don't care if you do or not.  I am telling the truth..." or something along this.  It is a marvelous time saver and focus of investigation. 

Christine Ford's accusation has been analyzed and she is deceptive. 

She estimates her event by decade, as well as locale. In her priority, she self referenced specifically in a political term: a "constituent." 

This is to declare her own motive of being heard. A victim of sexual assault will often show motive within the statement; often being justice or being heard.  These often refer to themselves as victims, survivors, or even "persons" in some form.  

Dr. Ford is deceptive about her specific event in accusing Judge Kavanaugh.  Although we have not had a great deal of statements from her, I don't doubt that she was a victim; likely early childhood sexual abuse. 

With a deceptive statement, politicians may be exploiting her; howbeit willingly, as her agenda is within her own language.  Yet, if she is to testify under perjury consequences, the context changes. She will be "alone" and if she perseverates using Kavanaugh as her target, an experienced interviewer/prosecutor is likely to uncover this. 

In order for Judge Kavanaugh to issue a reliable denial, he must be brought to a specific allegation that took place in a specific time and location.  Otherwise, he cannot respond. 

Also, politicians behind Dr. Ford have insisted that the accused speak first.  

This is not only a perversion of justice, but will not permit him to have psychological engagement with an accusation. He cannot deny that which he is not accused of. 

The leftist theme of "I believe women" is to harm genuine victims of sexual assault.  It is the ultimate "crying wolf" at the expense of those who have suffered most. 

Leftism is not about any singular issue, nor is it a moral cause. It is about the psychological need to control. This is why the moral or ethical code can change rapidly in culture. It is why we often hear adult core values appear to change. These core adult values do not really change.  In private, the same person will revert to his or her comfort level.  This is why you hear "I support the LGBT community!" while privately holding homosexuals in contempt.  

The core adult value is outwardly sacrificed for the sake of control and imposition. 

 It is why violence is indicated; historically and presently. 

It is why normally civil people can begin to harass and stalk someone at a restaurant. When others gather (or are called), mob psychology takes over and the results can be lethal.  

It is why Leftism makes the unnecessary claim of "tolerance"; as it is intolerant.  It is both "unnecessary" and "moralizing."  If it was tolerant, it would need no such claim. 

Everything is political now, because control is insatiable and it is competitive. 

This is why we see the almost comedic "who is the most outraged?" contest of competition among news pundits, college kids or others. 

They are the soft targets for politicians. By making everything in life, including our private lives, social lives, sex lives, nutrition, etc,  part of politics, nothing is neutral.  Today we cannot even watch sports or listen to music without the need to tell us what "correct thinking" (and speaking) looks like., 

With the psychological need for control, we've seen a rapid departure from classic liberalism (freedom of speech, college debates, irreverent humor, etc) to extremism.  

Disagreement with the current status quo is met with claims of extremism and hyperbole.  If you do not like the president, make him the verbal equivalent of a tyrant guilty of killing tens of millions of people.  Mike Pence said he believes in marriage as defined for human history.  The media responded claiming he would "round up gays and put them in concentration camps."  This has a psychological numbing affect on most, yet can impact others to respond in violence. 

Controlling the Thoughts of Others 

With the psychological need to control, tolerance cannot be permitted. This is why debate is considered "hate speech" and "unsafe for college kids." 

Once deeply respected by classic liberalism, disagreement and scientific scrutiny is now silenced with "hate speech."  Those who do not study history fail to understand that "no taxation without representation" was both hate speech and put lives, freedom, homes, property, family, etc, in harm's way.  

The indoctrination in American colleges is escalating.

  Learning is about confrontation and taking us out of our comfort level. 

In mental health facilities, signs are posted to "celebrate your reality" which, too, has its consequences. As those who wish to counter acute mental health issues, they risk their professional standing and even their license, by the crowd "shouting" to control diverse thought. 

The comparison to the small sample in New England (and Europe) of the "Salem Witch Hunt" of hysteria, guilt by crowd, and pervasion of justice is an appropriate thematic comparison.  

It does not render an opinion on the testimony, but demands adherence instead.  It is contrary to both justice and to freedom. 

There are examples here of genuine victims' language indicating veracity followed by examples of fraudulent claims of victim status following closely behind. 

Analysts here do pro bono work for genuine female victims of sexual abuse.  The data base of language is continually growing.  Specialized training for Sex Crimes Units helps identify genuine victims, even when recalling dissociative events, which mirrors deception. I still  fail to quantify the life long suffering of such victims.  Adding the "boy who cried wolf" element to genuine victims by false claims and the politicians who exploit them, increases suffering. 

Working with victims has often put me at odds with advocates.  The zealousness of the advocate, including in "helping" write affidavits in support of protection orders, relies upon deception or exaggeration.  Its toll is predictable. Genuine victims do not need to deceive, which can destroy their entire case for safety.  

The fraudulent claim against Kavanaugh, combined with the orchestrated outbursts, theatrics ("I am Spartacus") and the claim that a "woman must be believed" has consequence far beyond this small moment in history.  Major League Baseball will suspend a player on an accusation by a woman, without adjudication. Where will this lead? To whom will the ultimate control rest? 

As the subject, Dr. Christine Ford, indicated her motive as political, it would be disingenuous to ignore it. Those who claim personal offense at such likely need to read elsewhere in news, blogs or websites where they can read without offense. 

Although Judge Kavanaugh claimed he was telling the truth, we need to hear a Reliable Denial coupled with this buttress of telling the truth, to know with certainty. 

He cannot issue a RD without a specific allegation. He must be brought psychologically close to the event by the language of the accuser in order to address it. 

The analysis shows Dr. Ford is deceptive and politically motivated. It is only if she issues a direct accusation that the accused can answer us. 


Alex said...

Peter, Thank you for providing clarity and for your efforts in keeping these issues in the spotlight.


elf said...

It seems like the democrats/liberals are just trying to circumvent the American justice system of innocent until proven guilty. And since the second accusation from Ms Ramirez surfaced, which seems even more vague than the accusation Dr Ford leveled, I am in agreement with President Trump's assessment that this is indeed a smear campaign.
As someone who has been raped I find both accusations a personal insult. Whats even more insulting is people who tell me that I "must not know what its like to be raped" and "I should stand behind these poor women who were violated by judge Kavenaugh" without a doubt but I can't! They are lying!

frommindtomatter said...


but relevant in understanding the problems we are facing as a society.

I think people may find this interesting.

Five monkeys - how to create a mentality of 85% of the people that we call MASS.
If anybody is not familiar with this social experiment I recommend watching this video. It shows how a culturally learned response is created. We can then see how natural behaviour can be corrupted by external influences.

Anonymous said...

BallBounces said...

One of the quirks of the English language is that never can mean "at no time, over time" (which is how S/A treats it), or it can be used as a point-in-time negation. "You went to the hockey game, right?" Response, "No, I never went". Never is the only available negation that goes with "went", and it has the logical force of "I did not go". There is no "at no time, over time" connotation to this.

Anonymous said...

The latest on Brett Kavanaugh: Nominee's testimony released as another woman comes forward

Anonymous said...

OT: Missing child in Gastonia, NC. Autistic and nonverbal, disappeared while supposedly at the park with his dad and an unnamed adult, but police dogs have not been able to find his scent. Has been missing for 4 days. 911 call was released this morning.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The latest on Brett Kavanaugh: Nominee's testimony released as another woman comes forward

Right on schedule just as Ford's accusations are falling apart here and the 2nd woman's story has fizzled into nothing, here comes another one. Where were all these people months ago when the process first started and could have been addressed accordingly and in private? They thought the dirty tricks and histrionics during the hearing would derail his nomination but when that didn't work, the dirtier tricks ensued. This morning the creepy porn lawyer dodged every question about his client's accusations refusing to say it was Kavanaugh who attacked people, he was just there. Oh yeah, she supposedly went to 10 of these parties where this behavior was rampant. Really, after the first one she kept going after knowing what they were? Again, no specific year, date/place but hey, we have to believe her because she's a woman and must be believed.

According to the female prosecutor set to question Ford, Ford's attorneys still haven't provided the therapist notes that supposedly support her accusations and the lie detector test results and probably never will. They are calling foul and protesting loudly at a woman questioning her - they want the optics of old white men questioning a poor little woman (who's a rabid feminist, democrat supporter and anti-trumper). If he's going to be judged by his supposed behavior in high school, why not her when there's actual proof in her high school yearbooks of paryting, getting drunk and not knowing what happened the next day meant it was a great party (according to them).

One acquaintance of Kavanaugh said news media was hounding her for dirt on him back in June and were upset when she wouldn't give them any. This is nothing but a coordinated effort by a disgraced party that hounds Republicans in public driven on by Maxine Waters despite people being shot, dismissing every accusation of a similar nature against Democrats and are now ready to throw 200 years of a legal juris prudence in the trash without a care for the long term damage they are causing to the country. Clinton aides are now admitting this is nothing but a naked attempt to stop any Trump nomination to the Supreme Court. The goal is delay, delay, delay and if they adress these 3 women, guess what, another one will pop up and another one and another. Just look at the democrat attorneys advising these women - Anita Hill's attorney, the woman who helped Ted Kennedy bork Robert Bork, Andrew McCabe's attorney to name a few.

They need to just hold the vote and then let the American people speak in November.

Anonymous said...

I see this "wolf in sheeps clothing" thought control at play in certain megachurches as well.

Be it religion or politics, people can be controlled and led to do heinous things for that in which they place their faith.

The people doing the controlling are corrupted by their power, and have made a conscious choice to use (at least some of) it not for good, but evil.

This is my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Would like to see Statement Analysis of the hand-written statement by Ford that was used for the Polygraph test. I think the crossed out words say a lot & I see deception. She even crossed out the word "so" and replaced it with "to"- well that's a big red flag (or should i say blue text therefore sensitive to the writer).

Image of hand written statement is here:

Anonymous said...

GeekRad said...

I am by no means an expert in SA but I am not sold on "never" not making a statement a reliable denial. For instance, if talking to someone about skydiving I would say " I have never been skydiving" or "I have never skydived." I am betting there are thousands of times I have said " I have never been there" or "i have never tried that", etc. What am I missing? Especially when asked "have you ever... " as was the Judge. His response "I never... "
Looks like I am missing a key element to SA as I thought he three required elements for a reliable denial. Obviously I need to study a bit more.

frommindtomatter said...

GeekRad 5:40

I am not an expert in SA either but I know that “never” does not mean the same as “no.” So when someone uses never when they should have said no we have to question why they chose one word over the other.

If I asked someone “did you bring a gun into work you today?” I would expect the answer “no I did not” as a denial.

If they answered “I have never fired a gun” They would be avoiding using the expected answer of “no,” and they would have and changed the context of the question from “bringing” to “firing a gun” The question was clear, did you bring one “today”? The answer should be relevant to the question so would be “no I did not.”

They answer given should be relevant to the question so when “no” is required due to the question demanding a yes or no answer we must ask why the subject has chosen to use another word in its place.

Another example would be if I asked you “would you like to go sky diving?”

You could answer “no I wouldn’t” or “I have never wanted to.”

By saying “no I wouldn’t” I would take your answer as being a firm one. I would believe you wouldn’t want to. By saying “I have never wanted to” it leaves open the possibility that tomorrow you might want to.

Anonymous said...

From Ford's handwritten statement: "Mark jumped on top of US 2 or 3 times" Does US indicate unity possibly, occurring during the alleged assault?

Anonymous said...

Also the poly questions weren't about what she said happened, only whether she lied or made any part of the statement falsely Not a good use of the poly. She should have been asked specific questions about specific actions she said happened, not overall veracity. That's akin to polygraphing her intent (Do you intend to tell the truth?) which isn't a valid use of the polygraph.

frommindtomatter said...


There is a 14 minute interview with the father of missing 6 year old Maddox Ritch here, scroll down the page to find it.

Anonymous said...

I just read Dr. Ford’s prepared statement on CNN.

Hint: Find the pronoun that is out of place for a sexual assault.


Anonymous said...

Link to the CNN piece:


Anonymous said...

Professor Ford uses the word “we” when talking about herself and her alleged sexual assaulter AFTER the alleged abuse occurred.


Anonymous said...

The “we” in that location is what popped off the screen to me too Apple.


Trigger said...

Dr. Ford said in her letter ..."Kavanaugh physically pushed me into the bedroom." This is not a reliable statement.

Dr. Ford's prepared statement says..."I couldn't see who pushed me." This is a reliable statement.

It is interesting that Dr. Ford went from her certainty that "Kavanaugh physically pushed me" which she later changed to a reliable statement that she couldn't see who pushed her.


Alex said...

I noticed she referred to him as Brett before and during the assault part of her statement, then as Mr. Kavanaugh afterwards.


GeekRad said...

Thanks frommindtomatter. I understand. Maybe the use of never has less significance in general conversation as opposed to an accusation? Still trying to understand.

GeekRad said...

But mindtomatter, saying I wouldn't versus I never have are very different. One considers future, the other past. Still learning!

Derek said...

An observation. I find the polygraph note very strange. Why start with "there were 4 people," immediately cross it out, and instead write "there were four boys and a couple of girls?" I may be reading too much into nothing, but IF you subscribe to the view that Ford is making up the story, this could be interpreted as her being indecisive about whether to stick with the version in the therapist notes and her letter to Feinstein (4 boys) or add in Keyser as a fifth witness and hope she'll just go along with it for the sake of friendship (she didn't). I don't necessarily claim that's what's going on, but it is interesting. Almost as if she can't decide which route would make for a more convincing story, even as she's writing up the statement. Is this analyzable?

Anonymous said...


Not quite but close. She referred to him as Brett before, during, and after the alleged assault. Remember, a change in language reflects a change in reality. We look for what may have prompted the change in language ie. what changed her reality. In this case there was no change in her perception of him from before to after the alleged assault like I would expect. No, her change in language comes after he is nominated to the Supreme Court. That is what changes her reality and causes her to refer to him as Mr. Kavanaugh. From the point he nominated, he becomes Mr. Kavanaugh.

As an aside, I noted that she refers to him as Mr. rather than his title as Judge. One could read this as distain (consistent with the other analysis) but regardless, she denies him the title he has earned by calling him Mr.. The difficulty is discerning whether this is because she believes he assaulted her or because of political differences. However, consistent with Peter’s previous analysis, I am inclined to believe it is political and based on his nomination to SCOTUS.


Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I think, if I understand the underlying principle correctly (big "if"), that because the accusation is specific it should kind of automatically provoke a very specific (and often righteously indignant) denial. "I did not [whatever the specific accusation is]!"

"Never" is an all-encompassing time frame from first breath until the moment the person utters it. It is often used in an attempt to buttress one's position...a position that should not need shoring up if the person has issued a reliable denial. When asked, "Why should I believe you?" and the subject immediately issues a second reliable denial, I think that's the Wall of Truth principle. The "I did not [name specific offense]." is accurately past tense- the offense has already been committed by the time the person is being accused of doing it. However, "I would not..." is a conditional denial, followed by a reason or reasons the subject lists to support his position. The "I would never..." is future tense, with never being an unending unit of time. The issue is that the accusation is always time specific.

Benjy said...


Someone deleted my comment supporting your view on this matter. Hopefully the comment can be restored.

Benjy said...


I found the unusual comment deletion to be intellectually as well as emotionally upsetting & I am trying to heal from it, slowly, with careful thought to whete this tumultous politicak envirinment is taking us.

Alex said...

The introductory part of her statement is the longest virtue signaling I remember reading. How could anyone not believe her.

This is all about her.

Poor thing, the Dems will throw her to the wolves as soon as she is no longer useful.


Alex said...

Anon @11:27,

If you are talking to me, I am not an analyst. I only posted an observation in the hopes that an analyst will chime in.


rob said...

Why did she delete all her social media before this started? Why can she remember some details but not other minute ones? Why did she go for her own poly first, why not offer to let the FBI poly her? Why do none of the first witnesses back her story up? What's in it for her? Even if this happened, it's basicly a tussle on a bed with boys you know, she was not raped or injured. and I'm a female in her age group speaking.
Every thing I've read of her story is she has an agenda. It's someone she 'used' to know, his politics are much different than hers, and she sees herself as the one to stop him.
The other 2 women, (and #3 attorney) appear to be nutjobs. Who is paying them, or is it just for the media attention.
Our country is going down fast, at the hand of democrats. I say let's hold the vote, and any republican that votes against, remove from the party.
This is my opinion, my when I read her letters, my analysis is LYING.

Anonymous said...

re: out of place pronoun
do you refer to this?

"We have received tremendous support from friends and our community."

Anonymous said...

Why does she talk in a teenage voice in the hearing? Is she regressing? Or manipulating. She tries her best to look terrified, but I am not buying it.


elf said...
2 different men have confessed to the sexual assault of Dr Ford.
Talk about a twist.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:13PM,

It was the use of the word "we" when describing the pile toppling over at the conclusion of the alleged assault. I haven't seen a case of substantiated sexual assault or rape where the victim used the word we to describe themselves and the attacker after the attack. As Peter has covered elsewhere in his blog, it is a remarkable use of the word "we" where it is unexpected.


Anonymous said...

Yahoo headline:

"Christine Blasey Ford painfully recounts alleged attack ..."


They are not neutral, objective and are fanning the flames, that is noteworthy.

They could have said, in emotional testimony, Ford recounts alleged attack, but they chose painful.

Mizzmarple said...

I agree with you about the "teenage voice" - it seemed as contrived as her "story."

I also agree that she tried to look terrified, but IMO, her performance failed.

Mizzmarple said...

Wow !

Thanks for the link.

This should be headline news !!

Anonymous said...

Not once did I see her wipe away tears, nor did she blow her nose. Her emotions felt as manufactured as the School girl persona she adopted for her performance.

Anonymous said...

Rachel Mitchell will NOT be prosecuting Brett Kavanaugh.

habundia said...
another woman to come out with a sexual assault allegations. she truthful?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

If Person A’s accusation is false (deceptive, fabrication), it’s likekt to produce an unreliable denial by B, the accused.
This is even more so as greater the vagueness of the fabrication.

If a media circus entails a litany of new conclusions such as
“He’s a Taoist”
“He’s unfit for the job”
It is expected that the subject will be highly defensive. The accused has no psychological connection to the vagueness but now is countering slander and libel.

He has politicians and 90% media condemning him with no evidence.

That the allegation is deceptive and in context, he is no longer issuing a denial, but defending his character.

The conclusion:

Ford is lying.

Kavanagh did not assault her “physically” or “sexually.”

As professionals read this blog, they will be conservatives & liberals, Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

We work together for truth, regardless of personal opinion.

It is a science.

Leftism is a religion of coercion including insult, shoutfown, group think, faux moral supremacy and violence.

It has no place here.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

correct “rapist” not Taoist.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I hope to record video of this case.

Also Celis peer review up soon.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

See analysis on Judge Moore.

The Ford case is not challenging for analysts.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

It likely went out in chain.

Please; no need to support me. Professionals and full time instructors read here. Peer review is invaluable.

If you see a specific point of unknown or disagreement, point it out and ask about it.

It allows me or others to address the point, rather than anything personal.

Thank you


Statement Analysis Blog said...

This is what leftists do; group think, shout down, flatter, insult and so on. Online mob or at a restaurant.

Over the years I have had threats and

Vile insults of my wife and children -/because someone did not like analysis conclusion.

Keep in mind how many times one person posts and responds to self in another name.

They have most all media but Leftismm is not about any single issue:

It is about control. They demand tolerance while exercising tyranny.

This blog is mostly law enforcement & Intel commminity. They are most non partisan. They deal w human nature every day in a context different than most.

They come from Rank & File. They’re not political or soft promotions.

They investigate all regardless of political, religious or social background or standing.


Anonymous said...

Corporate media coverage is like Skim milk,
Pasteurized, and
99% FACT-free!

Anonymous said...

Wouldn’t you lose your jobs or cred with political taint analysis? Just sayin

habundia said...

If I asked someone “did you bring a gun into work you today?” I would expect the answer “no I did not” as a denial.

If I answered 'I've never brought a gun to my work'.

Would this be unreliable because never was used while it wasn't asked...."did you ever take a gun to work?"

habundia said...

So if she is as smart as is suggested in responses of people here, why wasn't she able to produce a more challenging statement?
Is it because she's not a good liar? Or what explanation could there be?

Trigger said...

I read this post.

My first thought was...this poor woman. She is so emotionally fragile. How can Sen. Feinstein and her cronies put Ms. Ford in a position where she is open to so much public humiliation, ridicule, and degradation?

This is unnecessarily cruel to do this to a woman with this kind of emotional distress, in a public forum, when it could have been handled more discretely.

NumberOneD said...

I am somewhat a philosopher... without beating dead horses, everyone views through one or more perspectives based on any and all given "premises" and subsequent logic(s)...
But having said that, I am in agreement with this analysis in principle ... It is well thought out and well written ...
Further to that perspective.. we don't know what went on with the "doctor's" treatment several years ago (whichever year that was) ...
If there was hypnosis or any form of post hypnotic suggestions ... intentional or otherwise... this would be thrown out as nonfactual, planted memories...
This actually happened in a court case where hypnosis was used to help the witness remember and was thrown out on appeal...
Not to get hung up in the weeds here ... but there are probably several different scenarios that could evolve to realistic scenarios here ...
We need those Doctor's session(s?) notes at the very least ... actual real cross examination as well to cut through the B.S. and farce! ...
Just saying!😎

NumberOneD said...

Hypnosis may be helpful in the context of criminal investigation and under circumstances involving functional memory loss. Hypnosis is not useful in assuring truthfulness since, particularly in a forensic context, subjects may simulate hypnosis and are able to lie wilfully even in deep hypnosis; most troublesome, actual memories cannot be distinguished from confabulations-pseudo-memories where plausible fantasy has replaced gaps in recall-either by the subject or by the hypnotist without full and independent corroboration. While potentially useful to refresh witnesses' and victims' memories to facilitate eyewitness identification, the procedure is relatively safe and appropriate only when neither the subject nor the authorities nor the hypnotist has any preconceptions about the events under investigation. If such preconceptions do exist, hypnosis may readily cause the subject to confabulate the person who is suspected into his "hypnotically enhanced memories." These pseudo memories, originally developed in hypnosis, may come to be accepted by the subject as his actual recall of the original events; they are then remembered with great subjective certainty and reported with conviction. Such circumstances can create convincing, apparently objective "eyewitnesses" rather than facilitating actual recall. Minimal safeguards are proposed to reduce the likelihood of such an eventuality and other serious potential abuses of hypnosis.

Anonymous said...

Magic crystals, too!

Statement Analysis Blog said...

The motive for Dr Ford was political. She has been a leftist activist and was prepared to go after Kavanaugh years ago if Mitt Romney won the presidency.

Her deception cannot be indicated without the engagement of her will.

This is the first point of analysis.

The denial to a fraudulent allegation is often Unreliable.

The emotional response to allegations of gang rapist leader, pedophile, etc should produce human anger.

Without such, the same leftists who say he’s unfit temperamentally would be saying he has comfort level with the allegations.

Dr Ford is psychologically damaged, unfit for teaching and without significant human empathy.

She’s willing to destroy in order to destroy.

It’s sonething that even those who do not want early term abortion banned, express concern over.


Anonymous said...

So, do the FBI investigate the many problems of good olde dr. ford...can they resurrect her facebook acct. , for instance?, can they do whatever necessary to prove that hers was a planned and political attack on a man precisely because he is a perceived political threat?

Mitt Romney....that was how many long years ago? Plenty of time to brainwash herself while she waits for her prey to surface once again......

Let's try and convince ourselves that stozack and page are gone so now the FBI is back to
being great again?

Anonymous said...

I found this analysis persuasive - until I read that she had passed a polygraph with flying colours. Now I'm conflicted.

It was interesting as well that in the statement she read out at the hearing, she got rid of the Victorian heroine language-he no longer tried to "disrobe" her, she did "yell" for help (after TRYING to yell for help) and she was worried he would accidentally kill her instead of inadvertently kill her. This change of language seems suspicious - there's no cause for it when she telling the same story.

I'm a survivor of sexual assault, and I usually find people telling their stories moving and difficult to hear. I want to cry when they cry. Watching Ford was like watching a school play - I was unmoved. If I've not got empathy for a victim of sexual assault it's usually because they aren't convincing. But then, there's the polygraph.

The way she tells the story, it sounds like one of those British "Carry On" films,farcical. "Carry On Sexually assaulting." That bit at the end where they all stack themselves up then, ooops, fall over, and she escapes.

But, if she is lying, how can she pass a polygraph? I could see how she would if they used language that wasn't hers but they asked whether she had made up any part of her statement. She still passed.

The only way I can see is if she either got the navy seal training and used counter measures, she took some sort of medication or the polygraph was a set up? None of this seems likely - I would be interested to know what you think, Peter.

Anonymous said...

That's not the only thing that changed - she lost the Victorian heroine language, inadvertently, disrobed... And at the hearing, she reported yelling, which was missing from her letter.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
I found this analysis persuasive - until I read that she had passed a polygraph with flying colours. Now I'm conflicted.

don't be conflicted. how does one pass a polygraph?? by controlling the questions asked.

it was a paid for polygraph. it was not administered by law enforcement and the questions could have easily been designed for her to pass. I have read that she was not asked about Judge Kavanaugh.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

and...they refused to reveal key details of the polygraph.

polygraph shopping...ask the Ramsey team lawyers!

noob said...

From her prepared remarks:

"I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school."

-She doesn't say what happened
-Whatever happened, she doesn't say it was negative (or traumatic, or that she's a victim)
-She doesn't say "what Brett did to me" - there is no accusation being made against him here

Terribly non-committal, utterly soft language full of inference but devoid of direct confrontation or accusation. Wouldn't a victim say, "It is my civic duty to tell you what Brett Kavanaugh did to me in high school."

Additionally, I'm not an SA...but isn't "I believe" distancing language? "I believe we have the right to bear arms." versus "We have the right to bear arms." It turns a statement that is falsifiable or at least arguable into a statement that is unfalsifiable and inarguable. How can someone even begin to argue with you about your personal belief?

"I believe it is my civic duty" versus "It is my civic duty". To me, that suggests she's unsure whether she's doing the right thing, but she has been convinced that she is (or convinced herself that she is). If a more general way...truly wanted to stop a new justice from sitting on the bench and overturning Roe v. Wade, for example, you may genuinely feel compelled to stop him from achieving that chair, but if you have to deceive others to stop him, you can't bring yourself to fully commit to the deceit, thus adding "I believe" because your subconscience cannot join you in your deceit.

Peter Hyatt said...

She began by removing the human as her “physical and sexual” assailant.

Disassociation due to trauma is sometimes found in the event; not in the opening. This is the psychological passive voice she enters and remains in.

Also her “civic” duty matches her letter wanting to be heard as a “constituent.”


Anonymous said...

So again Peter's analysis is on target. After 7 FBI investigations 0 has been found. She has lied.

It will be interesting to see if she gets prosecuted for lying on oath - will Kavanaugh seek civil damages from her. Or are we now at the stage where "depending on your identity" you can say/do anything you want without consequence?

"During a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that after seven FBI investigations into Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, “these allegations have not been corroborated. None of the allegations have been corroborated by the seventh FBI investigation.”

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the pointers about the polygraph.

Polygraph shopping? Wow. Paid for by her lawyers, and no key details released. Ok, so I don't believe her.

Every argument, conversation, discussion in the public sphere about this seems to go like this:

Lefty: He assaulted her, so he isn't fit to sit on the Supreme Court

Reasonable person: Here is all the evidence that he never assaulted her, and that she is an unreliable witness, and that there is no corroborating evidence, and that she has repeatedly lied.

Lefty: But look, he got upset and cross when we accused him of sexual assault, that means he's not fit to be on the Supreme court, he doesn't have a judicial temperament.

Reasonable person: Everybody gets upset when they are accused of sexual assault. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Lefty: This is not a trial, this is a job interview - and there's no smoke without fire. Anyway, he was a gross jock in high school, so he isn't fit to sit on the supreme court.

Reasonable person: erm... if you barred all gross high school jocks from participation in public life as adults, you wouldn't have much public life.

Lefty: Ok then, he's not fit to sit on the supreme court because he is a partisan! Look, he's just written an op ed and talked to some news channel I don't like! You can't have supreme court judges sounding off on political issues in public. He has to work as part of a team!

Reasonable person: yes, he is open about his political views, and that's clearly not appropriate for a judge, because the delightful Ruth Bader Ginsberg is such a constant source of calm, balanced, judicious non partisan balance on political matters. You'd never see her spouting off about anything political.

Lefty: I agree with her, so that doesn't count. Anyway, we shouldn't put him on the supreme court YET, we need a full investigation (that will take weeks and take us beyond the elections, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, tee hee).

Reasonable person: The bottom line for me is that her account is not credible. I don't believe her.


If it weren't so pervasive and didn't have such a chilling effect on the public conversation and on people's lives, it would be almost comic.