Thursday, September 27, 2018

Dr. Christine Ford's Handwritten Letter

Readers of Statement Analysis blog will take note the use of the word "we" found after the alleged assault, indicating unity and cooperation. Victims of sexual assault will drop the pronoun "we" once the assault takes place. 

"We drove to the woods. He raped me.  He drove me home and I called police." 

In one of the Bill Cosby accusers, you will see this exampled indicating truth (with the other indicators of veracity) as well as locate examples of fabricated claims of rape, here at the Statement Analysis blog. 

Her prior statement has indicated her for deception.

Although she is deceptively accusing Judge Kavanaugh, her words reveal acute psychological issues, including the possibility of early childhood sexual abuse. She revealed her motive as political in her statement by her choice of words. 

Instructor Steve Johnson's profile on the handwriting follows. This is consistent with the Statement Analysis, including short entries on Twitter.  Steve's handwriting analysis is principled, disciplined and used actively in criminal investigations.  He is a retired detective, and a full time Statement Analyst and Handwriting Analysis instructor. 

"If  really Christine Ford’s handwriting, it contains deception and 
emotional instability indicators.  The instability is seen in the right 
to left slant as well as the erratic middle zone letters.  

The HW is also full of anger tics and a strong passive aggressive 
trait. There are signs of drug usage as well. 

There are indicators of sexual repression in this HW, which can 
stem from sexual abuse.

Given the way that the letter is written (handwriting alone), the 
author will not be able to “hold her own” if questioned about the 
incident she is alleging. " 

Hyatt Analysis Services 


Anonymous said...

She also uses “us” after the alleged assault.


Anonymous said...

I've heard many women on the show "I Survived" say "we" when describing what happened after a rape. I listen purposely for it because of theis blog and I've heard it several times.

Anonymous said...

Why is this handwritten letter dated August 7, 2018, but the 'Confidential' letter to Senator Feinstein is dated July 30, 2018? Also, in the typed letter, the font has varying styles and sizes?

Anonymous said...

Is there any possibility that the "we" could be,"he?" Looking at other examples in the statement, it looks like "we" but they are very close. It doesn't read as well saying, "then Mark jumped and HE toppled over." It would be unnecessary and make little sense. I think I've just answeean my own question.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I was surprised to hear Professor Ford wanted a second door because her home wasn’t “aesthetically pleasing” from the outside. I was expecting to hear she wanted another front door so as not to feel trapped.


Anonymous said...

"Embedded within the hypocampus..." in response to the stand out memory? There should be no need to persuade. There is a delay here.

rjb said...

I also thought Ford's response to the question about how she knew Kavanaugh was her attacker was hinky. Not, "because I saw/felt/smelled him," no, it was a very scientific answer regarding neurotransmitters and brain structure.

Bobcat said...


False allegation:

Selective memory
"We" after alleged assault
Humiliation about laughter and no boy waiting for her in the bedroom while she used the bathroom, and she had to run back through the same living room to leave the house.

C5H11ONO said...

The 2 questions asked in polygraph were chosen for a reason. I think so she can pass.

Anonymous said...

"Brett's assault on me drastically altered my life."

How so was her life altered? Substance abuse? Academic and professional success?

"I was an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina and earned my degree in Experimental Psychology in 1988.
I received a Master's degree in 1991 in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine University.
In 1996, I received a PhD in Educational Psychology from the University of Southern California.
I earned a Master's degree in Epidemiology from the Stanford University School of Medicine in 2009.
I am a Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University and a Research Psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
I have been married to Russell Ford since 2002 and we have two children."

Anonymous said...

Apple (Anonymous) at 11:05 a.m., you misunderstood her. She chose to put the second door in, even though it's not aesthetically pleasing.

Good try though.

Anonymous said...

RJB @ 11:35, it was a scientific answer because that is what she is educated in. How is that so hard to understand?

Kitt said...


Anonymous said...

so sad for Maddox

Trigger said...

I am also wondering how Dr. Ford's life was altered.

After listing all her accomplishments, we are supposed to believe that insisting on an ugly second door be installed in her bedroom was the most compelling evidence of a "life altering" event.

She has all those abilities and degrees but can't remember who paid for her poly.

She did confirm that she frequently used air travel, she had a go fund me account, she was offered a private confidential hearing in her area, her therapist made mistakes in the notes, she corrected her own letter on three points, and she was the anonymous tipster to the Washington Post. She called the newspaper three times to get their attention because they were not responding as she had expected.

She stated that she was getting all her suggestions on getting media coverage her "beach friends."

She came across an attention loving "star."

Tania Cadogan said...

I wonder where the body was found in relation to the park and the parents house?

Anonymous said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...
I wonder where the body was found in relation to the park and the parents house?

Even the basic understanding of SA principles can be upsetting. His father said he thought he would be okay the first night. A 6-year-old and a non-verbal autistic 6 year-old to boot. The mother addressing him like an adult, telling him to come home. How was he supposed to do that if he was lost in the woods. Even I can see the neglect in their language at the very least. That poor sweet baby.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Part I

The following is highly speculative but to me it feels true so I decided to post it here .

If Dr. Ford is indeed a victim of early childhood abuse (sexual or perhaps emotional neglect) chances are this abuse took place in her parental home. All along I had the feeling that Dr. Ford subconsciously describes her own home in her letter to Sen. Feinstein.

According to psychiatrist Andrew G. Hodges, small children can experience childhood abuse/neglect as a total destruction of their lives because they literally depend on their caretaker(s) for survival. This “murderous attack” then creates a severe emotional trauma that is consciously buried but subconsciously remains frozen in the back of the person’s mind. It’s an unconscious post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thus, if Dr. Ford was abused in her early childhood this may have felt to her as an attack on her life (“I feared he may inadvertently kill me”). Perhaps she could not tell anybody about the abuse (“hand over my mouth”). This traumatic early home/family life may have caused an unconscious post-traumatic stress disorder in Dr. Ford that she is not aware of.

In that case, several later events may have triggered a regression and made Dr. Ford relive the pain and humiliation of her traumatic home/family life. I wonder if the near foreclosure of her parental home in Potomac, Maryland (in 1996) may have been such a trigger (it would explain several references in Dr. Ford’s letter). Brett Kavanaugh’s mother Martha Kavanaugh was a judge in this case. Even though (from what I read online) Martha Kavanaugh eventually ruled favorably toward Dr. Ford’s parents (who ended up keeping their home), Dr. Ford may have felt that Martha Kavanaugh – possibly by keeping an eviction hanging over her and her family’s heads for a certain time – tried to destroy her home/family life all over again. Just like her early childhood abuser. To Dr. Ford this may have deep down felt as an assault on her life: Kavanaugh ”tried to inadvertently kill me”.

To be continued.


Anonymous said...

Part II

Another possible trigger is Mitt Romney publicly mentioning Brett Kavanaugh as a potential nominee for the Supreme Court if he (Romney) would be elected president in November 2012. Now the son of the woman that had tried to destroy Dr. Ford’s home/family life and had (almost) caused the Blasey’s to fall off the social ladder threatened to hold one of the highest positions possible in the USA. The fact that Dr. Ford told a therapist about a sexual assault in a suburban Maryland home in 2012, is a possible indication that this event made Dr. Ford regress to her childhood trauma.

Further triggers may have been president Trump mentioning Brett Kavanaugh on his shortlist of possible Supreme Court nominees in 2016 and nominating Brett Kavanaugh as such in 2018.

According to Hodges, when a person regresses to an early childhood trauma he/she can crack and retaliate in a moment of unmitigated rage. This retaliation is often a reenactment: it takes the form of the abuse inflicted upon the person. The person makes others feel his/her severe pain to avoid his/her own unconscious pain.

This may be exactly what has happened here. The above triggers may have made Dr. Ford want to retaliate for her early childhood abuse. However, she may not be aware of this abuse (although she feels something has happened to her). Therefore, instead of retaliating against her early childhood abuser, she ultimately retaliates against the son of the woman that (unknowingly) made her relive all the pain and humiliation of this abuse. She tries to undo Kavanaugh of his judicial robe (“tried to disrobe”) just like she may have been disrobed by a (“highly inebriated”?) early childhood abuser (reenactment). She tries to push Brett Kavanaugh off the social ladder (”stumbled down the stair well”) just like Martha Kavanaugh (in Dr. Fords eyes) tried to push her of the social ladder (reenactment).

I think Dr. Ford indeed has a political motive. However, there may be deeper, underlying motive: retaliation or, as Dr. Ford says it in her letter to Sen. Feinstein, ”repercussions”. Where Dr. Ford qualifies herself as “a constituent” in the second paragraph of her letter, she may (also) be subconsciously referring to herself as “part of” a family.

I think this story has several layers.


Anonymous said...

“I’m not eating. I’m not sleeping,” Ritch said at a Wednesday night news conference with Gastonia police and the FBI. “I’m just worried about getting my little boy back. I thought after the first night, he would be fine."

"I thought after the first night, he would be fine." WHAT THE HECK? Methinks he meant:

"I thought after the first night, he would be FOUND."

The area where he was found had been searched numerous times. Was ether body moved?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I generally don’t comment on anonymous postings but the above speculation is interesting and well thought out.

The hand over the mouth is a phrase (silencing) from childhood.


Anonymous said...

Thanks, Peter. I didn't know that (i.e. hand over the mouth is a phrase from childhood).


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Very thoughtful post.

The hand over mouth is associated w “inadvertent” death. This reflects expectation of “life@ (trust)

That she may be gaining her “revenge” on innocent man, even w political motive, is worth consideration.

Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts in detail.

You should study SA.


Anonymous said...

You're welcome, Peter.

I'll think about studying SA. It certainly has my interest but I don't have much time (and don't live in the USA).

It's breathtaking what suspects reveal in their statements. I will definitely keep posting my thoughts on your blog when I see an interesting case coming by.


frommindtomatter said...


Interesting reply from Maddox Ritch`s father at 1m 28s in below clip.

"How long before you began to worry?"

"I started worrying once I got "back" and didnt see him anymore and once I got to where the office is, you can see that theres the parking lot right there, and you can still go around the lake."

He started worrying when he got"back". The question would be back from where? He gives the order "got back" and then "didnt see him anymore", which seems odd as I would expect the worry to start on losing sight of the child.

It has been revealed he was with his girlfriend (not the childs mother) when maddox went missing. Its possible they were busy with each other and took their eyes off of Maddox for a few minutes.

Lorraine said...

I have been fascinated by handwriting analysis for years and have read many books on the subject. As I looked at her handwriting I noticed that the writing traits have many corrections and cross outs. The books I read on the subject says that could mean anxiety and also a covering up of one’s tracts. The “i’s” are not dotted. I think that means a lack of attention to details.

I have been a reader of this blog for years and admire your work. I appreciate the time you take to teach us the principles of this science and especially I appreciate your attention to this blog because you must be very busy with your own day to day activities. Thank you.

John Mc Gowan said...

#MeToo Mania: 8th Grader Gets the Kavanaugh Treatment

If the circus that moonbats have made of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation with their preposterous allegations hasn’t convinced you that it is time to rein in #MeToo mania, maybe this ( ) will do the job.

Eighth grader Keith Bailey was not only suspended but literally hauled off by the police in handcuffs from his Colorado Springs middle school as a result of phony #MeToo allegations made for the same reason as with Kavanaugh — he was deemed to be politically incorrect.

It started when Keith changed his Snapchat avatar to a black Bitmoji character. A female friend proclaimed that was racist and ordered him to change it back. When he laughed off her demand, she spread the word around school that Keith is a racist. Other boys threatened to beat him up.

Then the girl and three other female classmates took it to the next level, appearing to take a page from the Feinstein handbook on how to destroy your political enemies, they appeared before the vice principal to accuse Keith of sexual harassment and assault stemming back to the summer.

As with Kavanaugh, the allegations have no credibility. For example, two of the girls were friends from a church youth group who continued to be friendly with him after the assaults were alleged to have occurred. But in the #MeToo era, accusations are as good as proof.

One of the girls identifies as a feminist. Apparently, she has been watching the news and knows how things are done now.

Says Keith’s father Dennis,

“I think the whole political climate is what is motivating this. Anytime you disagree with somebody, now you accuse them of sexual assault and automatically they’re a victim and you’re a monster. It’s so highly publicized now, that’s just the answer.”

After an extended interrogation at the school during which Keith was not even told what he had supposedly done, he was arrested, hauled off to the police station, finger-printed, had his mug shot taken, the works — compliments of the climate created by the Democrat Party

Statement Analysis Blog said...

The Salem Witch Trials were small & isolated. The witch hunts in Europe were larger.

This was quickly extinguished in the colonies after destroyed lives.

The #metoo movement is broad, deep and destructive.

It a a great tool in the hands of politicians and their soft targets are easy to spot.

Genuine victims of sexual assault will be hurt. As the mania dies, victims won’t be believed.

It’s history repeating itself.

JoAnn said...

One of the Senators, it might have been Leahy, began to question Dr. Ford about her mention of the boys’ laughter during the alleged assault. He asked, sympathetically, “They were laughing at you?” Dr. Ford was quick to respond that the boys were “having a good time together.” When he asked her a second time to agree that the boys were laughing at her, having fun at her expense, (and saying it in a way that we knew he meant it was very hurtful to her), she again did not agree with that, instead correcting him to soften the statement to something more like “boys laughing together, just having a good time.” Someone humiliated this woman, and questioning her about that might have been a key to whatever anger or suppressed rage led her to that hearing. But this wasn’t the right setting & a proper forensic interview is the only way to get answers. This hasn’t been taken to the Maryland police for a reason. Dr. Ford appeared to be rather fragile at times, which makes me wonder what further damage has been done to her? Even though she instigated the initial proceeding, this public hearing could have been avoided. As a side note, her voice was a complete surprise. Did anyone else hear a “little girl” voice at times & a very ingratiating way of speaking to the Senators, esp. Sen. Grassley (he wanted to give her a break time; she: “if it works for you” “ I’m accustomed to being collegiate”) It was like watching a comedy of manners.

Trigger said...

"Genuine victims of sexual assault will be hurt"


The democrats who organized this sham are unconcerned about victims of sexual abuse.

This was about a reckless show of power and fake imaging.

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.

JoAnn said...

Two front doors. This really struck me as disingenuous. Dr. Ford is a professor of psychology! Even to someone with a passing interest in psychology, it’s obvious that two front doors is symbolic of one’s need for an exit or escape, perhaps a neurotic obsession with the ability to exit at will. Am I to believe that she, at some point in her marriage, renovated her home, and at that time, “it came up during therapy” that she required two front doors? Even though this made her house aesthetically displeasing from the curb? She mentioned that they host Google interns during this conversation, so I assume the two front doors is a quirky thing often discussed with these interns. She smiles when mentions this. This makes me think she enjoys, on some level, being the neurotic professor with two front doors. I have known women who try to out-neurose one another. I don’t believe for one second this psychology professor, who lived without two front doors for a long time, could not find another way to deal with this anxiety - more or different therapy, perhaps? It just doesn’t ring true, coming from her. I could understand if a woman, not a psychologist, in therapy, discloses that she has two front doors and her therapist helps her gain insight into the anxiety that led to that need. But this just seems odd. Like, it’s the front of my house, so everybody can see and ask me why.

JoAnn said...

What I was trying to say was that she did not have a repressed memory of sexual assault. She was aware she had been assaulted. She would know why she needed two front doors. And as a ppsych professor, she would know that the extra front door wouldn’t actually help her anxiety. If a patient in therapy figured out why they had placed two front doors on the blueprint for their home, their therapist would help them work out a healthy way to deal with the anxiety, rather than adding an extra door (because one extra door wouldn’t be enough, two doors wouldn’t be enough, etc.). She is a smart, learned woman, a scientist. I think she is a victim. I do not believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her.

Unknown said...

JoAnn said...

".. As a side note, her voice was a complete surprise. Did anyone else hear a “little girl” voice at times & a very ingratiating way of speaking to the Senators, esp. Sen. Grassley ..."


Yes, I heard a "little girl" voice, somewhat of a "tween" type voice, during her entire testimony yesterday.

I wonder IF it was her real voice - or if the voice was "contrived" ?

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Rachel Mitchell will NOT be prosecuting Brett Kavanaugh.

rob said...

I thought she needed two front doors because she housed ex-change students. If you have a lot of people coming in and out, you could use a second door for them to use in and out of their housing area without disturbing the whole house hold.

As for her testimony, she writes like a child, she speaks like a child. I think all that is fake. She probable lowered her chair several inches also. I'd like to interview some of her students, especially ones that didn't get along with her, I bet her voice is not child-like then.
Also, in the most traumatic event in your life, who doesn't remember what house, whose house, how you got there and how you got home. She had nothing, other than- I'm 100% sure it was Brett. That don't work for me.

Michele said...

OT - from Facebook. Ian Ritch father of Maddox Ritch.

"First i want to say thank u from the bottom of my heart to everyone who took part in searching for my sweet lilbuddy. I truly appreciate everything everyone did to find him. And to everyone in the community that were hoping and praying and just took one second of their time to think about Maddox i thank yall too. I loved that lil boy he was my best lil buddy. Maddox was my only child and he will be the only one i will ever have. I wasntso worried about him when all this started on sat because i expected to find him right off over time i got more and more scared and worried. Once sundaymorning came thats when it startes me thinking i had something to worry about. Now today i found out im not a dad anymore. I had big plans with my son. I wanted us to go fishing play ball go camping. I wanted to be his heroe. I wanted him to say i was more than supermanor batman to him. Iwanted people to ask him who his heroe is and him say my daddy. Now im no heroe i couldnt save him or protect him at all. I would give anything to go back and save him. While a lot of people dont believe anything i have said in the past believe this. From this moment on for the rest of my life i will live with the guilt of not being there to save my son. The most important person in my life. So when everyone else gets to go back to their normal lives remember that i will never be the same man again. I will now and forever be a broken man until i take my last breath. Ivenever been a very spritual man before but. Ow i want to be just so when i die my lil boy will be the first person i see when i get into heaven. I cant waitto see his lilsmiling face again. Please all i want is some time to try to pull myself back together the best i can. So this will be my last response i will give to anyone. Just please hug ur children tighter and please dont make my mistake and let them get too far away from u. Do everything u can with ur children because i wont get the chance to do anything with mine. Now to Maddox i just want to say i love u lil buddy. Please be waiting for me when my time comes because i promise im gonna do everything i can to be with u rooster!!!!!"

John Mc Gowan said...

Brett Kavanaugh: Jeff Flake stuns Republicans with call for delay on floor vote – follow live

Republican senator calls for FBI to investigate allegations further but committee backs Kavanaugh 11-10 to move to Senate floor

Anonymous said...

I wonder if there is anything statistically noteworthy of her "assault" being bookended by "bathroom".

If the bathroom is a place for cleansing, and she mentions needing/using the bathroom before and after the "assault" - could that indicate a need for cleansing insomuch as that part of her story inside the "bathroom" 'bookends' needs cleaning? It's a dirty story i.e. not true?

Maddie said...

I agree Me Too has gone too far. I also think Kavanaugh does not have the temperament to sit on the highest court. Can you analysis his statements? I know it’s a lot.

Unknown said...

This is incredibly difficult to read. Not just in terms of readability, but it changes slants and almost forces you to read each sentence twice before being able to actually put together the context.

The way she starts the statement is alarming:

No "I" first. Starting with "While" but changing her mind. "One high school summer in 80s".
Before "early 80s" but also changed. She not only shows weak commitment to the following statement, but literally cannot get a time coordinated and closer than spanning an entire decade.

"was pushed" and "was locked" being passive language also shows weak commitment.

The "we" and "us" shows unity with Brett, but that unity is absent when pointing out anything regarding Mark. "His friend Mark was ALSO in the room" showing that his presence was not something inclusive to her and rather stood out as intrusive. "And both were laughing" points towards a unity between Brett and Mark that she was not comfortable with.

"Mark jumped on top of us 2 or 3 times" reads as there being unity with Brett but Mark being intrusive and unwanted.

"I tried to get out from under unsuccessfully" is credible. She was being smothered, was not comfortable with what took place now.

It reads like something that humiliated her. Not necessary something criminal. Brett and her were close according to this statement and something romantic could have taken place as her indication of unity indicates openness towards it.

Maybe I am wrong, but it sounds almost like she was into Brett and liked him and possibly had hopes towards a relationship, but the way this event went down with Mark present deeply hurt her. And possibly triggered certain memories closing the door to previous hopes.

Unknown said...

I was not able to watch more than the hour or so that I did. However, I figure I will practice SA with what seems to be a very telling statement:

"One high school summer in 80s". is also what they call story-building. "I went to a party and Brett assaulted me" would be a commitment. Straight to the point. Not about Mark being there laughing and jumping on top of them. There is no implication of Mark groping or violating her other than her pride due to laughing. "The boys were in the room" again shows unity between Mark and Brett, so we are dealing with two unities at odds with each others.

Brett groping her doesn't start until almost halfway into the statement. I believe that I see Brett's name mentioned only once other than in "the boys". Mark however is mentioned by name 3 times.

I have read some other statements here and agree the hand over mouth could have triggered fear for life. But I believe that the laughter part shows the strongest trigger in this particular statement. A potential unity with Brett was broken by THEIR unity laughing about HER.

I am not sure what specifically was triggered, but it appears highly sensitive to her.
Had Mark not been there and Brett acted differently, it could have been completely different. And we also cannot tell what if any history Brett and her could have had potentially leading towards something.
She was not interested in anything while Mark was there. Am I right to read into the statement that some feelings towards Brett were present and the major let-down of how this event took place being a major disappointment?

Alex said...

Something else I can't understand is the date of the alleged assault. She knows the year she was born and she knows she was 15. Why can't she nail down the year?


Also, does anyone know if she actually has 2 front doors? If not, would this be akin to saying, "I tried", as far as a statement is concerned?


Unknown said...

"Something else I can't understand is the date of the alleged assault. She knows the year she was born and she knows she was 15. Why can't she nail down the year?"

It reads to me like being intentionally vague in preparation of making future replies to potential questions regarding her not remembering certain details. Alibi building.

Alex said...

Someone please tell me this is not an embedded confession from Mark Judge.

“I do not know Julie Swetnick,” he continued. “I do not recall attending parties during 1981-1983 when I fondled or grabbed women in an aggressive or unwanted manner.”


Alex said...

Here is the link to the story from where read the above quote.


Unknown said...

“I do not recall attending parties during 1981-1983 when I fondled or grabbed women in an aggressive or unwanted manner.”

"do not recall" is indeed very weak. Also, "attending parties during 1981-1983 WHEN I FONDLED or grabbed women in an aggressive or unwanted manner." 'does read like an admission to fondling or grabbing. Not necessarily at this specific party, but potentially one or some around the timeline he has mentioned.

I would expect "I did not fondle or grab women in an aggressive or unwanted manner when attending parties during 1981-1983" as a strong denial. In contrast to the strong denial by Kavanaugh, Mr. Judge's statement indicates hiding something at best.

Again: It does read like an embedded confession. But that could stem from having shown the behavior at events other than this one.

Alex said...

I used to be easily fooled before I stumbled onto this blog after Haliegh Dunn was reported missing. That one case alone showed me the validity of SA.

Even still, while listening to the Dems this morning, I was struck by how convincing they were. I had to keep reminding myself of the discrepancies in Dr. Fords testimonies.

It is obvious to me this is obstruction. After all, they did say they were going to try to thwart President Trump's agenda at every turn.

I think these hearings could very well be used as a case study in projection.

This blog has help me to better understand many of my family members.

Thank you again.


Alex said...

Thanks Mike,

That line, as they say, jumped out at me.


Unknown said...

For what it's worth, this is Swetnick's statement:

Anonymous said...

OT: Home Invasion Story

The husband sounds like he's storytelling as his badly bruised wife sits in the background. He also tells of being wrapped up like a mummy and then wiggling free.

"And I, and I, finally got out, and I, I, opened up the door and I came out here and, over on the hallway there was this big butcher knife that we have in the kitchen, it was laying on the, on the, f- floor there and I picked it up and it had blood on it."

Full transcription here:

General P. Malaise said...

Jacob said...
Still no statement

no one is stopping you Jacob. why don't you analysis it?

Laura said...

Also John McGowan, Did u see the photos of Kav and Blasey raising their hands to take the oath?
Blasey's fingers were firmly together while Kav's fungers were splayed apart. I did an experiment on myself of how my hand would look raised to take the oath if I was innocent and my fingers would be firmly together like Blasey's. If I was guilty they would be sloppily splayed apart like Kav's. Try it with yourself.

Jacob said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I NEVER sexually assaulted anyone!

LOL, Apply your rules, teacher!

September 28, 2018 at 8:54 PM

He won't, because he knows as well as anyone who reads his blog that applying his rules to Kavanaugh's testimony will reveal deception on the part of Kavanaugh.

Anonymous said...

I dont believe in the "never" rule.

Someone wrote to me "I never loved you." and he was telling the truth.

How is a person supposed to phrase it?

Anonymous said...

Maybe he isn't a person....

Trigger said...

I caught something that Dr. Ford said when I watched her testimony.

She responded to a question by saying, "that's the only way it could have happened.

I thought then that she was deceptive.

Anonymous said...

Ive seen people use "never" in denials, and they were telling the truth. Simple as that.

Someone wrote to me "Love is deep. It was lust. Infatuation maybe. I never loved you and that is the truth."

Is that a true statement?
Why doesn't someone analyze it?

Anonymous said...

I want to know if it’s as bizarre as it sounded that Dr. Ford said “Brett” this and “Brett” that during her recollections of the alleged assault. After the account and the assault was over he at some point become Mr.Kavanaugh??? I’m her initial letter to D Feinstein he was mostly “Kavanaugh”.

General P. Malaise said...

Kavanaugh's words at the hearing not in the free edited process. this changes how they are analysed. the same approach or value to sensitive words can not be applied.

generally it is more like a contaminated statement. generally contaminated statements are put aside. information can be gleaned from them but it should be done with a team of experienced analysts.

the blog followers should note Peter did analyse Kavanaugh's denial. blog followers should also understand the hearings in the senate are not free editing process. SA should not be applied the same as it is in the free editing process.

General P. Malaise said...

further to Kavanaugh's words which make trying to apply SA to a transcript of today's senate hearings is that one needs to consider both the question and answer.

where it gets difficult and possibly becomes impossible (hence contaminated) is the questions and answers need to be held against the context of both the question and answer.

........and the CONTEXT here is of the questions and answers, is derived from the previous week of senate hearings (questions and answers) and Kavanaugh's interviews.

for people new to SA and this blog understand to maintain a scientific approach one needs to be aware of the limitations of what can be analysed and what the basic principles are. there is a principal for contaminated speech.

Anonymous said...

What happens if we follow the names, where she refers to him as Kavanaugh, Mr Kavanaugh and Brett? That might be helpful. There have been other posts on this Blog such as in relation to Bill Cosby etc Do the names change, if so where and what could have caused the change?

Anonymous said...

General - also as I mentioned above Rachel Mitchell will not be prosecuting Kavanaugh so she clearly has found deception in her investigation which matches and proves Peter's analysis.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Statement Analysis is a sex abuse victim’s best friend.

From sex crimes units to court to restoring dignity, it has proven invaluable.

The false allegation brings cynicism to the general population.

It silences victims.

For Leftists, that’s no concern. It’s no different than the feminist boast that if innocent men go to prison it’s worth “female rights.”

Democrats deliberately concealed a fabricated accusation, worked on amending it’s most obvious errors, slandered, libeled & ruined a man’s life.

Although the justification is keeping the Abortion industry (especially for black children) profitable, it is ultimately about control.

We will recoil from this circus, but will then see worse to come.

Desensitization & Toletance.

This is how they will lead us to armed conflict.

I know of some who want abortion legal, citing rape, yet cringe at the body parts trade and recognize the argument for slavery and the Holocaust of Jews is the same.

They’re truthful and conflicted.

Blumenthal, “Spartacus” and Diane Feinstein have done damage to genuine victims of sexual assault.


Alex said...

Earlier in this thread I was lumped in with some other people as to questioning the validity of SA because I have asked some questions. I believe in SA as I have seen it expose liars in my own life. I have seen it work with verifiable proof in both my personal and professional life.

Peter Hyatt is not on call to answer all of our questions or to prove to each naysayer the validity of SA.

(Joke coming) He won't say it, so I said it for him.(End Joke)

When I ask questions, it means I don't understand, not that I don't believe.

We are being divided as a society from within and then while in a weakened state we will be conquered from without if we don't stop this fighting.

We need to hold all of our leaders accountable for their actions. We are not being led, we are being pushed.

Thank you for tour time.


Unknown said...

I fully believe in SA. However: In official government business, I am hesitant. Especially when it comes to written statements. Who even knows how much each individual was even a part of writing "his" or "her" statement. I have read several attorney-prepared statements indicating deception. However, it was later shown, that there was zero deception.

Statement analysis picked up on the deception properly. Why? Because it revealed from the lawyer's writing that the lawyer was "hiding" and showing deception likely based on either an internal disbelief in his client's innocence and/or simply not wanting to commit not knowing what surprises might come.

So yes, ask your questions, Alex. Better than being silent and leaving unanswered thoughts to keep us from learning.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Mike, this is why analysts analyze the statement; not the person. It is not something lost on the analyst, whether it is "official government", or lawyer prepared, advocate assisted, etc. This is why I analyzed Christine Ford's letter.

Heathy scientific scrutiny is vital. I will be posting the results of three teams of professionals re Sergio Celis analysis. They were tasked with both scrutinizing the analysis from 2012 for error, as well as analyze it and the video of the interview given shortly after. It will require some time to put the three together and then to give explanations to non trained readers of what the analysts were stating.

The comments section is for learning.

If one has a question or challenge, the answer may be from me, or professional analysts, and it is regarding Statement Analysis.

Leftist propaganda such as

"this is slut shaming the victim!"
"you refuse to analyze Kavanaugh"
"he is a rapist and unfit for..."
"I admire your work but..."
"Nazi, Islamophobic, Racist, Hater," all reveal the cult like devotion to faux moral supremacy.

It has no place here. Accusations of any kind will not be responded to, nor remain.

It is not Statement Analysis, nor is it logical, nor necessary.

There are myriad places to post illogic and find applause.

The analysis of the letter by Christine Ford has triggered devotees of Leftism. They do not seek truth, but narrative. Insult is but an acceptable means. If their leaders will use slander, libel, etc, to destroy, they should not be considered immune to the same. They are intolerant, and have sacrificed critical thinking for moral narcissism. They do the bidding of the exploitative politicians.

I have pity on them, but that personal emotion is not what the blog is for.


Anonymous said...

leftism has killed more millions than nazi. Jordan Peterson covers it with the Soviet wiping out of millions for the "collective" good which always benefits the elite. Venezuela is down the toilet. Mr Hyatt can you comment on why it is making a comeback?

Alex said...

Each time I think the left can't sink any lower, they prove me wrong.


Unknown said...

I am a Ph.D. chemical engineer with a modest knowledge of medicine. I certainly know about the hippocampus. Unless I was having a medical discussion with a friend, I would never use such technical language. Using technical medical terminology is a time honored method of impressing less well educated people such as politicians.

Unknown said...


Anonymous said...

OT Update:

Gerry McCann recalls the night Madeleine disappeared in rare interview
'Disbelief, shock, horror, and then panic and terror... Because I could only think of one scenario at that time'

Madeleine McCann’s dad has spoken out about the night she disappeared during a rare interview.

Gerry McCann was a guest BBC Radio 4 show Pearl where he the special bond between dad and daughter and dealing with loss.

The programme was based around a modern translation of medieval poem Pearl about a father’s grief after losing his daughter.

It was dramatised by poet Simon Armitage who wrote Beacon to mark 1,000 days since Madeleine's disappearance.

During the show the 50-year-old cardiologist relives the night he and his wife Kate discovered their daughter, who would now be 15, was missing.

Kate and Gerry had returned to their apartment in Algarve’s Praia da Luz after having dinner in a nearby restaurant when they found her bed empty.

Their twins, Sean and Amelie who were toddlers at the time, remained in their cots.

He said: "That actual evening, on the Thursday when we went out... I [was] just [in] complete shock and Kate was screaming 'Madeleine's missing, she's gone' and I was like 'she can't be gone' and running in, I started looking in the bedroom and she wasn't there.

"Then [I started] checking everywhere in the apartment, even places where I knew she couldn't be - under the kitchen sink, in cupboards and it was disbelief that she said Madeleine was missing.

Disbelief, shock, horror, and then panic and terror - because I could only think of one scenario at that time."

The programme is about the special relationship between father's and daughters and weaved together two voices of grief - one from six hundred years ago and the modern-day voice of Gerry.

He added: "Yeah, so I haven't thought about those moments for a long time. Those specific ones because, as you can imagine, it's pretty painful."

The couple have promised to never stop looking for their little girl, after her sudden disappearance sparked a worldwide search in 2007.

Her whereabouts still remain a mystery despite a £12m police investigation.

The family also set up a ‘Find Maddie Fund’ and raising around £750,000 in a bid to find her.

Speaking of the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, Gerry said: "You know, I think I remember just being in the bedroom distraught, the two of us just completely distraught...

"The most painful realisation and I couldn't get the darkest thoughts out of our minds that, you know, somebody had taken her and abused her...

"... I remember being slumped on the floor and starting to call some of my family members and just saying pray for her because I thought that was the only thing that might help at that point."

He claims the following morning is now a blur and states he can't really remember the order of events clearly.

Gerry explained: "Honestly, that bit for me is blurred, I can't really remember in the order now... Police seemed to take forever to arrive."

Kate, a former GP turned medical worker originally from Liverpool, has previously given many heartfelt media interviews about the tragedy.

The show aired at 2.30pm today and is now available online at .

Madeleine McCann's father has described the "terror" and "disbelief" at first realising his daughter was missing.

Madeleine, then aged three, disappeared from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in 2007, sparking a worldwide search for her whereabouts.

Gerry McCann said he had not thought about "those moments" for a long time because they were too "painful".

Mr McCann was speaking to BBC Radio 4 for a programme about the relationship between fathers and daughters.

He said that he was sure immediately that his daughter had been abducted.


John Mc Gowan said...

The above is posted by me

After being told by his wife Kate that their daughter was missing, Mr McCann said "automation kicked in" and he began searching the apartment.

"We started searching more widely really quickly and then very quickly raised the alarm," he said.

"You're in this quiet little holiday resort - that seemed idyllic - out of season and I certainly didn't speak Portuguese so I asked [our friend] Matt to go to reception and ask them to call the police."

Madeleine McCann: Timeline of first night
Mr McCann said he remembered him and his wife being back in the bedroom "completely distraught", adding their reaction was "almost feral".

"I couldn't get the darkest thoughts out of our minds, that somebody had taken her and abused her," he continued.

"I felt that every moment that we couldn't find her was worse.

"I remember being slumped on the floor and starting to call some of my family members and just saying: 'Pray for her.'"

'It's so cold'
Mr McCann, from Rothley, Leicestershire, added that some parts of that night 11 years ago are "blurred", but he remembers waiting "forever" for the police to arrive.

"It just felt terrible. We went then to another apartment, by which time it was three or four in the morning and Kate was saying, 'I want to go back out and search.'

"I was saying: 'Just wait until it gets light,' and Kate kept saying: 'It's so cold.'"

Unknown said...

That struck me too. But, my takeaway was that the second door was for a separate entry, for the Google intern that are more likely renters, or airbnb guests. Very odd that a victim suffering from claustrophobia would welcome strangers into her home

Anonymous said...

I just saw this:

According to Dr. Hodges: Dr. Fords primary motive is to keep Roe vs. Wade intact. Underneath lies a deeply buried, enormous guilt over abortion, very possibly her own and/or numerous other abortions she has encouraged in her marches and career as a therapist. It is possibly Dr. Ford herself who violently assaulted others (the unborn) and she is now unconsciously projecting that assaultive behavior onto Kavanaugh. She wants to keep Roe vs. Wade intact so she can keep her massive annihilation guilt from surfacing. She must unload this guilt on Kavanaugh but knows she’s wrong to affect his confirmation. Deep down her appearance reveals her hidden confession publicly - a way of punishing herself.


Dan said...

Autumn, sounds likely. People who murder their unborn end up with serious issues. The left loves murder--they serve Lucifer & they lie like Lucifer. Anything to seem righteous when they actually thirst for blood!

Dan said...

Autumn--she also leaks out that explanation in her letter when she states towards the beginning "I would feel guilty" (if Kav gets on court & abortion is made illegal).

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Leftist hatred: USA Today: Kavanaguh should stay off basketball courts where there are children.

Anonymous said...

Dan: yes, perhaps Dr. Ford's letter actually describes her own abortion? It might explain her repeated references to the bathroom (bathroom could also be symbolic language for "womb").

The protests against Judge Kavanaugh - and the protesters fear of Roe vs Wade being overturned - certainly seem out of control to me. I doubt many of these people have actually thought this issue through (they hammer at human rights but see no problem in killing helpless babies). They are just easily incited by the divide and conquer rhetoric of their leaders.

As to Dr. Ford feeling guilty, that's a good find. She actually says it near the end of her letter: "(...)yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything."


Anonymous said...

I'm truly wondering if she read Mark Judge's book before she decided to come forward!
My 7th grade grandson can write better than this "doctor" who has made a career out being a student, and now a victim. She is getting what she really wanted, to be in the lime light. I have had worse incidents than she did, or the one she describes. I did not let them define my life. This is so ludicrous. God help our Nation!

John Mc Gowan said...

I dont believe in the "never" rule.

Someone wrote to me "I never loved you." and he was telling the truth.

How is a person supposed to phrase it?

Was there an exchange in correspondence?

If so, what was it?

What was the context?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Victor Davis Hanson on Christine Ford

Anonymous said...

After a D&C abortion a curved instrument is used to scrap the lining or surface of the uterus to ensure the removal of remaining fetal tissue.

1 1. 
burn or scorch the surface of (something) with a sudden, intense heat.

Dr Ford: “They have been seared into my memory and have haunted me episodically as an adult.”

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- Not a SA question here, but after reading the analysis on Christine Blasey Ford's handwritten letter, are there any handwriting analysis teaching materials you can recommend? You've referenced handwriting analysis occasionally in several other articles on the blog (like Anonymous-authored letters), along with an emphasis on credible handwriting analysis techniques.

habundia said...

Poor woman she needs to be saved from this man!
Storytelling,,,,,not a single word about his wife until asked and even then he does not use her name only says his wife (like as a possession)
Intruders who want money yet destroy multiple many phones does he have if he was able to find another. The 911 call would be interesting.
His story changes, there is time missing.
No concern for his wife until the very end he tries to show some "consern" , by telling what they did do to her and not him.

Did the chair go with him into the bathroom they dragged him to downstairs he said he was taped at?

This wasn't the first time.....

Anonymous said...

Did you notice she crossed out early 80's and left only 80's in her handwritten note?
When she was asked in the Senate hearing why she changed her testimony to Summer of '82, she could not explain the reason. Could it be that somebody reminded her that after Summer '82 Kavanaugh would no longer be in the area, she had to back it up to '82. That would also explain why she can't say how she got to the party, or go back home afterwards for 6-8 miles.
If she were only 15, no license and no car. If it happened later, she had a car and drove herself (but Kavanaugh could not be present )
Think about it.

Derek said...

Read these two Twitter threads comparing the notes to Ford's testimony:

Just a few points of many that they cover:

Ford says her attack happened in the "mid 80s" during her "late teens," but the 1982 time frame she gave places her at only 15. Also, she says it must have been during this time because she knew she "wasn't driving" at the time and she always drove after getting her license. But how did she get home? Walk? The party house had to be miles away from her own. Alone. At night. In the dark. After drinking. Wondering who's following her. But she doesn't remember the most terrifying walk home of her life? Not *at all?*

Also, Mark Judge apparently wrote a book where he talks about being drunk at a Safeway where he worked. Odd that Ford weaves this particular detail into her narrative. Esp. since Mark's timeframe there contradicts hers, per her therapist's notes.

Would love to hear your insights, Peter. What's the law about the FBI obtaining medical records relevant to an investigation?

John Mc Gowan said...


Gerry McCann Radio 4 Interview About Madeleine McCann (29/09/2018)

Duration 33:00

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

My Thoughts on Brett Kavanaugh’s FOX Interview

by Eyes for Lies

Iv'e noticed recently that "Eyes" does not comment so much on Body Language but the words spoken. Given the former is where she makes her living in Deception, is she loosing confidence in detecting deception with Body Language alone?

Anonymous said...

She doesn’t make her living in deception. It’s bull****


Shelley said...

Eyes for Lies always said the McCanns were innocent.
I know she lost all credibility with many after that.

GeekRad said...

Maybe the never rule is more an indicator than a rule. I have said "I have never been to..." I have never tried. ... " etc. in countless conversations. So if I say I have never been to Rome or I have never tried sushi or I have never been skydiving those are not reliable denials? I need a SA reminder of the parameters of using never.

LuciaD said...

Gerry McCann's radio interview is interesting. A few things stood out to me, such as at least twice he made references to water. A "tidal wave crashing over our family and friends" and "paddling furiously to keep from drowning". I need to listen again and take notes, but he also said after only 48 hours of her going missing he felt he could see a light at the end of the tunnel. Which seems unexpected to me. I wondered if that was the moment when he felt confident they had gotten Madeline's body stashed where it wouldn't be found? Near the end of the interview he states that "Madeline is in the right place", which she would be, from their point of view, if they hid her so well she's never been found.

If you have time Peter, your thoughts on his interview would be of great interest.

Anonymous said...

In that article she did not comment even once on body language.

Anonymous said...

For entertainment but not for truth.

Anonymous said...

Psychics are better than this silly egotistical stuff

frommindtomatter said...

This sentence from Johns post stands out as typical McCann language:

“We started searching more widely “really quickly” and then “very quickly” raised the alarm," he said.”

“really quickly” and “very quickly” –

The subject feels the need to justify the speed at which he acted. That is something very sensitive to him. Most who have followed the case believe that Madeleine was dead when she was discovered and that the McCann’s acted out the story she had been abducted. This would mean there would be no need to do “anything quickly” because unfortunately she was already dead.

What is interesting is that guilty people feel a need to justify their actions; they are paranoid that people are on to them or worry about certain points of their story which they think may be questioned. This leads to them giving a lot of extra information at those certain points. Simple sentences turn into long awkward ones as they try to make sure their audience won’t have any questions for them as they have already answered them all.

When you have the luxury of reading a transcript and then being able to watch the video it was taken from you get the added benefit of seeing the person in question emotions at play. I have found many times that a liar’s emotions cannot match their words. If they are telling of when their child was abducted and are reliving the moments through their memory the emotions are automatically there and add to their words. When telling a story about something which did not happen it is the opposite.

frommindtomatter said...

GeekRad said...

You just need to look at the sentence and context it was used in. It does not mean someone is lying if they make a denial incorporating the word never. But as never cannot be substituted for the word no it means it is not as reliable. In some answers it stands out like a sore thumb.

Did you kill the man?

“I never killed him” or “I didn’t kill him” - I would prefer to hear the second answer.

Children like to use the word “never” when denying things. “I never took it” or I never touched it” etc…

I could always tell when one of our kids was being deceptive because he used the word “never” in his denials. When he was being truthful he would say “I didn’t” do whatever or go wherever etc…

Liars don’t like to tell lies and the biggest lie is a bare faced one “I didn’t do it” (when they did), by saying “never” someone can avoid having to use those words so it lessens the emotional strain of telling the lie.

frommindtomatter said...

Michele said...

OT - from Facebook. Ian Ritch father of Maddox Ritch.

“I wasn’t so worried about him when all this started on sat because i expected to find him right off over time i got more and more scared and worried. Once Sunday morning came thats when it startes me thinking i had something to worry about.”

There are quite a lot of quotes about and a 14 minute interview with the father done when the child was still missing. One of the things which concerns me is that he does not seem to have any emotional connection with what has happened. Here is a quote from someone who worked at the park:

"It didn't look as though, they were that concerned," Foxx told CBS News, referring to the couple. "I've worked there almost three years and we see everybody come in and out of that park pretty much. I didn't see that kid one time."

My kids are grown up but I have a six year old granddaughter and if I lost her when I took her to the park I would be totally destroyed. I would imagine it would be even more difficult to come to terms with if you felt you were directly responsible due to letting them get out of your sight.

A woman said she saw 6-year-old Maddox Ritch at the North Carolina park the day he vanished — contradicting a park worker’s claim that he never saw the child before the father reported him missing.

Brooke Sheppard told WBTV she was at Gastonia’s Rankin Lake Park with her mother on Sept. 22 and saw Maddox, who had nonverbal autism, skipping and jogging.
“I can remember her [my mother] looking over and asking him ‘hey buddy are you tired?’ because he had just been skipping, jogging, being a kid,” Sheppard said, adding that she was at the park for a church picnic.

She told the news station that she later heard Maddox was missing. On Thursday, the FBI agents said they found a body believed to be Maddox was located near the park, about 20 miles west of Charlotte. The body was partially submerged in the creek.
“I knew immediately that was him, because I can remember seeing him, and then he was in front of me. I can just remember it to a T,” Sheppard said.

Sheppard added that she has been interviewed by detectives several times and have retraced her steps to where he saw the boy.

I hope there will be an accurate timeline released at some point showing when the father arrived at the park, how long they were there before the child went missing and any other confirmed sightings that were made.

It’s a very sad story.

Laura said...

I just watched an interview with Maddox' father. He is being completely honest.

Did you note the part where the interviewer said that the cops want to talk to a guy who was doing a Dr Seuss photo shoot at the park!
Do you recall how a suitcase & Dr Seuss book were found in the basement room Jonbenet was found dead in?
It totally sounds like a predator got Maddox. There is no deception coming from the father, so why are you implying there is?

What was Maddox' cause of death? Head injury like Jonbenet

Anonymous said...

Should be a question mark

Head injury like Jonbenet?

Anonymous said...

Why would someone as educated as Dr. Ford compose a hand written letter? Taking the time to write a letter and mail it seems very unusual in this day and time. Why didn’t she attempt to use email or some other electronic means to reach out to her congresswoman or senator.
It could have been lost, displaced, etc.
It also strikes me as unusual that her language is very simplistic. Again, with someone of her education and background it seems that the prose and word choices would have been more descriptive. It’s as if it were written by someone at a fourth or fifth grade level.
Sorry if I’m covering old ground with this

frommindtomatter said...


Was that the interview you watched?

The father starts answering questions at the one minute mark.

Question: When he ran away how far away was he from you?

Ian: “He w.., he wa.., he initially took off, just a little ways, maybe 25 to 30 feet from me and then he went to a major sprint after that. And that’s whenever I took off running after him. I was giving him just a little leeway, freedom, he likes playing outside he enjoys the outdoors, I just wanted him to have fun.”

He stuttered and struggled to give his answer to the first question regarding distance which is very sensitive him. He minimises with the word “just” and gives a possible 25 – 30 feet as initial distance.

He then says his six year old boy started sprinting (major sprint) and that’s “whenever” he took off after him. Let’s say his son was 100 feet away when he started after him. I worry a grown man whose every stride he took would be at least twice the size of his sons could not catch up with him. Every stride he took would half the distance between him and his son, not to mention an adult’s power and speed advantage over a six year old. If for some strange reason he could only run as fast as a six year old he would be able to maintain the same distance behind him while chasing him.

Question: How long before you began to worry?

Ian: "I started worrying once I got "back" and didn’t see him anymore and once I got to where the office is, you can see that there’s the parking lot right there and you can still go around the lake."

The second question was in regards to when he started worrying:

"I started worrying once I got "back" and didn’t see him anymore”

Where did he get back from? In order to get back from somewhere you must return to your starting point. He is telling us literally what happened. He got back from somewhere, maybe his attention was somewhere else some metres away from where his son was playing. When he got back he didn’t see him anymore.

What happens then is you don’t know which direction the child has gone in because you can’t see him. Possibly you set off looking for him going in the opposite direction which means you then move further away from him.

I am not saying the father has harmed his child but he is being deceptive in relation to how he lost contact with him.

habundia said...

I think it is outraged and awfull these woman do their allegations through tweets on Twitter. I do not consider that "brave" in all cases.

What happened with filing a report at police and them doing an proper investigation? Good old school police work with the help of technologies from these days....put in some good analysers and profilers and I am sure they can find a case of there is one.... if so then it could be made public....until then it shouldn't be because of the possibility of false accusation that ruins people's lives and careers.

I as a woman don't think 'woman should be believed, because they are woman'. .....
Woman who make false accusations and who indeed (probably) have been a (childhood) victim of sexual abuse themselves, I have a hard time to comprehend. I understand this accusation was based on politics.
Still protecting their (childhood) abuser but yet accusing an innocent (of what one is accused of) ?
Doesn't that count as some form of evil?

habundia said...

Tweets and a response to media:

Buckley said...

The handwritten statement was only meant for the purposes of the lie detector test. She wrote out her accusation and was then polygraphs for veracity in it. The above was not what she sent to Feinstein.

Shelley said...

Ford has a degree in and teaches psychology.

She is more than qualified to know what to say. Still while most state she was credible, I found her to lack any detail. Clearly

I watch lots of shows like Dateline. The first thing the police ask of a suspect is for their alibi during the time of the incident. Even at times will drive where they claimed they would to validate they had time to get there.

Her lack of a date or place is too convenient.

With out th date, Kavanaugh has zero opportunity to provide an alibi

Without a location is can not be validated if she was there, if Kavanaugh was there and removes the ability to validate if it had stairs, a bathroom upstairs, or a pool.

She didn’t block out the event or even everything after.

She was not credible in the least.

I don’t know why anyone says this.

I understand Trump and Kavanaugh are probably doing it to avoid one more attack but those that are not involved it make no sense to me.

And her polygraph questions were not even about the incident. She was asked about her “statement”

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Peter will cover this and more.

For now,

Mark McClish's analysis:


Anonymous said...


McClish analysis is here:

Anonymous said...

Thanks anon for posting the link.

" Everyone has some skeletons in their closet."

Ain't that the truth.

Who in the world would want to go through this crucible?