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.