Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Christine Ford's Deception: Professor Hanson

Christine Ford was deceptive. This indication means that she intentionally used language that did not proceed from experiential memory. This deliberate intention is called "motive." She had a motive, which is sometimes seen in priorities, (plural) that can compete. 

She used deliberate vagueness and passivity before getting to the actual event. This precludes disassociation from trauma. 

She lied to destroy a man's life.  This was her purpose. 

As genuine victims will now feel the blunt of disbelief because of her and other liars, suffering from sexual assault will continue. 

Those who claimed, "I was sexually abused, so I know she was truthful" not only disengage reason, but also bring harm to genuine victims.  This self centered view reveals more than they likely wish. 

When humans experience trauma, they generally react in one of two ways:

1. Human Empathy 
2. Calloused Indifference

Those who experience trauma often become deeply empathetic with others.  They do not want anyone to suffer the pain they endured.

Others become critical, defensive, and, over time, selfish and projective: inflicting or "punishing" others for their suffering. It is to claim a victim status, a monopoly on suffering and eventually bring family and friends into conflict; resulting in isolation. 

We find both in the language of victims with almost routine employment. 

The latter "advocate" for victims and claim compassion. The former are compassionate. 

The latter seek to inflict pain upon others, and often end up in years of therapy (when does it work?) with enabling professionals best suited for getting sufferers to pay for their vacation homes, kids' colleges, and life's comforts.  They do not mitigate suffering; they increase self directed insulation, which helps increase the victim's own attacks on the world.  They bestow "victim status" which gives the client (patient?) the "right" to lash out at others. This does not enhance the quality of life and often ends up meaning:  The assailant "won." 

We know so little about the life long suffering of genuine sexual assault victims.  From compromised immune systems, undiagnosed illnesses, to depression, anxiety and substance abuse, it is cruelty to make false claims.  To further their pain, disbelief due to exploiters like Christine Ford, #metoo attention seekers, and politicians, only breed more silence among victims. 

Social Service professionals trained in analysis are gems.  Although an ethical counselor is difficult to find, they skillfully mitigate suffering and help process trauma. 

This is from Professor Victor Hanson, posted at www.americangreatness.com 

It is not Statement Analysis, but a "rear view mirror" of deception's destructive wake written by a historian. 

You can read analysis of Christine Ford's statement, handwriting analysis, and a short message on Youtube regarding why an Unreliable Denial is often indicated in vague and changing allegations.  

If you wish to study Statement Analysis, or host a seminar, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  

Please research Statement Analysis before contacting us to enroll.  limited students accepted in live monthly training. 

One Ford Narrative Too Many – American Greatness

In the end, the Christine Blasey Ford accusations collapsed. With them went the last effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

After thousands of hours of internal Senate and FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, as well as public discussions, open questioning, and media sensationalism, Ford remained unable to identify a single witness who might substantiate any of her narratives of an alleged sexual assault of nearly four decades past.

To substantiate her claim, the country was asked to jettison the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the need for corroborating testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for reasonable statutes of limitations, considerations of motive, and the right of the accused to conduct vigorous cross-examination. That leap proved too much, especially when located in a larger progressive landscape of street theater antics, including Senate disruptions, walkouts, and sandbagging senators in hallways and elevators.
At the end of all things, Ford remained scarcely knowledgeable about the location and time of the assault than she was months earlier in her original anonymous complaint. Nor could she yet describe how she arrived at or left the party that may or may not have taken place in 1982. That Ford retained a crystal-clear account of having consumed just one beer and that Kavanaugh played the Hollywood role of a cruel, smirking, drunken, and privileged preppy groper were sensational accusations but not supportable.

After two weeks of the televised melodrama, the country rejected the therapeutic mindset and preferred what was logic and rational—without dismissing the chance that Ford somewhere at some time had experienced some sort of severe trauma.

In Ford’s case, that meant that being empathetic or even sincere did not translate into being credible. Logos (word) and ergon (deed) have never been synonymous. The country was finally asked to believe that because Ford told others of the assault 30 years later, that admission was de facto proof that the event really happened—and happened just as Ford described. But since when was sharing a story proof that the story therein was believable?

The Democrats’ strategy to derail Kavanagh encouraged the appearance of serial accusers—on the theory that the quantity of accusations could do what the quality of any individual testimony could not. Activists had little idea that the opposite usually occurs when such serial testimonials lack substantiation: like falling dominos one knocks down the next all the way back to the beginning. And so the wreckage of serial fibs and fables from all sorts also helped to undermine Ford’s credibility.

When the Deborah Ramirez yarn and the Julie Swetnick fantasy collapsed, along with those of accusers four, five, six, etc. (that inter alia had included charges of rape while out to sea off Rhode Island, a tag-team sexual assault with Mark Judge in the backseat of a car, and throwing ice), Ford’s narrative appeared even less credible. Instead it became just one of many fictions; the first accuser became different from the rest only in the sense of being the first rather than the only one credible.

But Ford’s problem was not just that her memory was inexact and often nonexistent about the details necessary to substantiate her quite serious charges aimed at destroying not just a nomination but the totality of an individual and his family, 36 years after an alleged teenaged encounter. Instead, the rub was that Christine Blasey Ford inadvertently became the best witness—against Christine Blasey Ford.

She had claimed that she was afraid of flying, but by her own admissions she was a frequent flyer.

She claimed the event took place in the early 1980s but also the mid-’80s—but also summer of 1982. Thus, her reported age at the time of the incident was equally fluid as a middle teen or late teen.
She swore that she had no idea that Senate investigators were willing to fly to California to interview her to accommodate her aerophobia—an offer splashed over the media for days.

Her halting answers to questions about her legal assistance funding, her past experiences with lie detector tests, the existence of any tapes or videos of her lie detector interview, and the content, accessibility, and nature of her therapist notes were either self-contradictory, illogical, or incomplete.
An ex-boyfriend turned up to question her narratives in a sworn affidavit alleging that she was demonstrably neither aerophobic nor claustrophobic—and perhaps far from being a novice in matters of taking lie-detector tests. Instead, he suggested that she had used her psychotherapy skills to coach her doppelganger friend how to massage such a test—a Zelig-like best friend who unfortunately also turned up at the hearings, and may well have hosted Ford before the Senate circus, and also allegedly may have tried to pressure one of Ford’s friends to massage her earlier condemnatory denials.

Reporters had noted Ford’s two-front-door remedy for anxiety was not necessarily a result of post-Kavanaugh stress syndrome as much a far earlier mercantile gambit to cash in on the Silicon Valley rent boom, where an extra room with a separate roadside entry meant a lucrative attached rental.
That the same ex-boyfriend claimed that an unfaithful Ford had also ripped him off for $600 in credit card bills (presumably a demonstrable accusation given banking records) did not help her case that she was a babe in the financial woods without a clue about her growing and lucrative GoFundMe account, or who in fact had paid her legal and prep bills and how—facts at odds with Ford’s adolescent demeanor of supposedly lost innocence.

So Many Stories

Senate prosecutor Rachel Mitchell might have proven in court more a depositioner than an inquisitor in her seemingly circular questioning, but in retrospect she proved a brilliant interrogator nonetheless in getting Ford to testify to a host of things that simply could not all be true—and would come back to haunt Ford in Mitchell’s damning summary of Ford’s likely untruths.
And why exactly were there so many contradictions as outlined in Mitchell’s written summation?

Christine Ford in July may have had no idea that her original anonymous accusation would ever become sensationalized publicly, much less put her into a position of trying to reconcile a number of irreconcilable narratives.
Instead, Ford had initially thought a single anonymous but poisonous letter would do the trick far better than had previous weeks of grandstanding Democratic baiting, demonstrations, and walkouts. A last-minute drive-by and anonymous charge of sexual assault would panic Republicans with the mere whiff of #MeTooism, shock and cower a goody-two-shoes, family-man Kavanaugh, and thus force a beleaguered, pre-midterm-anxious President Trump to withdraw the nomination—all without the disclosure of Ford’s name and thus without any further need to substantiate her narratives.

As a side note, in this context, I am confused by the bipartisan outrage solely directed at Senator Dianne Feinstein’s or her staff’s lowdown leaking of Ford’s name. Of course, it was unethical and so typical of the twilight years of the senior senator from California. But, then again, so is authoring an anonymous hit piece without any corroborating evidence but with misleading written assertions (such as how Ford sought “medical treatment” for the assault—without disclosing she meant marriage counseling 36 years after the fact.) It seems far less noble to charge Kavanaugh with sexual assault anonymously than to have come forward at the outset and demonstrate the charge transparently. The cloak of anonymity does even more damage to the idea of jurisprudence than does the unethical removal of it by a would-be enabler.

Yet the radical change of events that followed the disclosure of Ford’s name did lead to discovery of lots of Ford narratives with still more to come.
There was the narrative in Ford’s original letter to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), which wound up in Feinstein’s hands.
There was the therapist-notes narrative (released in part to the press but strangely not to the committee).

There was the Washington Post interview narrative.
And there was the Senate committee testimony narrative.
By the time of the last narrative, Ford had given one too many.

Sincere, Empathetic . . . But Not Credible

Taken as a whole, Ford’s problem was not just that she couldn’t remember key details, but that she remembered all sorts of different things depending on when and to whom she related the latest narrative. More incriminatingly, her narratives seemed to change key facts about the number and sex of apparent partygoers and the vague date and general area of the assault in ways that might enhance her latest iteration of the story.

What destroys credibility is not just a lack of memory, but more so the presence of too many memories that are selective, self-serving, and mutually contradictory.
Thus far the consensus has been that Ford was sincere and empathetic, but not credible. But more and more, it appears that she was all at once not credible, quite insincere, and perhaps completely unfeeling, at least in saying so many things that were not only unprovable, but demonstrably false and sometimes quite hurtful to her friends—and all apparently for the progressive end of stopping a qualified right-leaning jurist by destroying his character and reputation.

Ford had insisted on privacy concerning her own health problems, but gratuitously questioned the veracity (and by extension selfishness) of her friend Leland Keyser’s testimony by suggesting to the world that Keyser was suffering certain with “health challenges” (specifically, “Leland has significant health challenges, and I am happy that she is focusing on herself”), that might explain their differing memories. In other words, we were presented with something like “my friend perjures herself when she contradicts me but does so because she has medical problems and focuses on her treatment for them rather than on the ‘truth’ about me.”

Finally, the new progressive Democratic Party was especially dense in all this. Senate Democrats kept clamoring for more testimonials to buttress Ford’s charges, but at each juncture of a new witness offering relevant knowledge, the very opposite effect followed of further eroding her veracity. And in a brave new world without evidence, in which “sincerity” and “empathy” mutate into “believability,” and “her truth” is synonymous with “the truth,” why would the counter-testimonies of a boyfriend or best friend be any less believable than Ford’s, much less required evidence of their own? Why call for a supplemental, one-week FBI investigation (months after Feinstein had prevented just that) when all knew that after a week a once-praised FBI would summarily be damned for not finding Kavanaugh guilty of something?

In the end, Ford was perhaps fortunate that the entire circus ceased when it did. Had investigators probed any more deeply the recent accusations of her once long-term boyfriend, the strange but multifaceted role of her lifelong but apparently conniving friend Monica McClean in the Kavanaugh allegations, the passages of the therapist tapes, the exact circumstances surrounding the lie-detector test, the long odyssey of Ford’s original accusation through Feinstein’s staff to Democratic committee members and the media, and the sources of Ford’s judicial support, there might well have been more incompatibility with the ever growing number of Ford’s narratives.

In the end, we were left only with the Stalinist mantra “to accuse is to be believed”—but, of course, not even the current accusers in the future would be exempt from the very nightmare they now would create for others.

Photo Credit:  Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images


Statement Analysis Blog said...

For those who asked,

Steve Johnson (and most in LE) use:

Handwriting Analysis: Putting it to Work for You by Andrea McNichol

Those of you who know me for more than a few years know that I have had a very low opinion of HWA in general. I found it to be unprincipled and often agenda driven.

Steve won me over. He, along with Frank Marsh ("The Power of Questions") have submitted profiles that match the Psycho-linguistic profile (which matches the face-to-face psych evals, etc).

Their work is principled and withstands scrutiny. Both are deception detection experts and they teach the same principles of language into handwriting.

It is brilliant.


Anonymous said...

Somehow the comments I saw earlier seem to be gone,
including the ones with this link.

To Understand Christine Blasey Ford, Take a look at Palo Alto University


I did not vote for either "side". I do think she has very good points here.

It is also true that Kauffman's yearbook profile contained references that he seemingly was less than candid about, for what it is worth.


GeekRad said...

Rachel Mitchell did a brilliant job of exposing Ford's lies. Unfortunately most of Ford's testimony was written by her attorney's and no doubt rehearsed dozens of times. It appeared to me they were unprepared on the issues of flying and offering to interview her at home. Those may be the only statements she made worth analyzing because the rest was prepared by her attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Accuse first and then find the crime to pin on the person and force them to deny while more accusations accumulate. Is that it?

Unknown said...

"Christine Ford was deceptive. This indication means that she intentionally used language that did not proceed from experiential memory. This deliberate intention is called "motive." She had a motive, which is sometimes seen in priorities, (plural) that can compete. "

Confused about the definition of motive in this case. Is the motive to deliberately not speak from experiential memory or something underlying?

Lorraine said...

Andrea McNichol’s book was the first one I read. It is very easy to understand. One of my favorites ! I can also recommend the book

Handwriting Analysis: The Complete Basic Book (Paperback)
by Karen Amend

These books can be found at very low cost on Amazon used books.

Trigger said...

Dr. Ford is a cavalier liar who gained fame and fortune for her efforts in this drama to ruin a man's life.

rob said...

Dr Ford had an agenda. She was willing to put herself out there for the benefit of her political party. Even though both sides said she was a credible witness, all sides know she was not, but you can no longer call out a liar, for lying. And to cap it all off, she now has a million dollars to make her loss a little better.
I want to hear from her students, people that can tell you who she really is/was. I'm betting she was all in pushing her beliefs as a professor.

Bobcat said...

This is random OT but what appears to be facial contortion - the way Dr. Ford pulls her head back and chin in reminds me of a young lady I knew who was a ... challenge. She could never relax. Always on edge. A very high maintenance person to know.

That strange facial 'contortion' was so common from the lady I knew. It never made any sense, as if I was supposed to interpret some hidden meaning every time she did it, but I was never bold enough to ask why she did it.

It wasn't the "withering look" a la Judith Martin.

As far as body language facial expressions, what is that look?

Skeptical said...

Christine Ford appears to be a prime example of MK Ultra or some type of mind control. She can only remember what has been implanted in her mind. I wonder what her trigger words were. It is interesting to watch some of the YouTube videos where an alternate personality breaks through or induces a trance. Brittany Spears, Al Roker, Robin Meade, Shak Oneal, and Courtney Kardashian are some of the more apparent that something is wrong.

MARY ANN said...

rob said...
Dr Ford had an agenda. She was willing to put herself out there for the benefit of her political party. Even though both sides said she was a credible witness, all sides know she was not, but you can no longer call out a liar, for lying. And to cap it all off, she now has a million dollars to make her loss a little better.
I want to hear from her students, people that can tell you who she really is/was. I'm betting she was all in pushing her beliefs as a professor.

October 10, 2018 at 1:02 PM

When this story first started coming out, there were numerous articles about the reviews that Dr. Ford got from her actual students basically warning other students not to take any of her classes. They said she was dark, emotional, volatile and vindictive and you'd better not cross her. I just tried to find the articles referenced earlier and of course they've been scrubbed from the web along with any other negative information about her teaching. Now it's articles about how all the students believe her and stand behind her.

As for all these people asking why would she do this when it destroyed her life consider Anita Hill. She's an icon and is revered by the left, has received awards and recognitions and now Christine Ford is up on the pedestal with her and she has a million dollars to boot.

Joe said...

Bobcat, I think I know the look you mean. With Ms.two-door Ford, the look is probably extreme conspiratorial duper's delight.

Anonymous said...

Skeptical, I agree with you.

Clinton apologized for MK Ultra, it is known to have existed historically but few consider the possible applications today.


This video of Anna Nicole Smith made by her handler is a good example.
It is disturbing.


LuciaD said...

A great summary of the Ford debacle. An anonymous “drive by” accusation indeed! I agree that silly woman got far more she bargained for.

John Mc Gowan said...

False #MeToo Allegations Rack Police Department

Even when false #MeToo allegations are refuted, the damage they inflict can be substantial. Ask Brett Kavanaugh’s family, or former Bellevue, Washington police officer John Kivlin, who spent 49 days in jail over bogus rape allegations:

Kivlin was one of three members of the Bellevue Police Department who was accused of sexual misconduct by the same woman, KING reported.

Although a forensic investigation has cleared him, the false accusations cost Kivlin his job.

[T]he Issaquah woman has a history of seeking out men on Craig’s List and then falsely reporting those consensual encounters as rape, the Seattle Times reported.

Something is very wrong when people can keep doing this long enough to establish a history of it.

The woman also accused Bellevue Police Chief Steve Mylett and another detective in the same department of raping her, sources close to the investigation told KING.

Chief Mylett has been on leave because of the allegation, despite the absence of evidence against him.

During the course of the investigation, detectives learned the 44-year-old woman had also made false rape accusations on two prior occasions in 2009 and 2010.

That can’t be true. We have been told that women never lie about these things.

The accuser actually did have a consensual extramarital affair with Kivlin. The silver lining to #MeToo mania is that it often (although not always) targets men who have good reason to reform their behavior.

But by now the phenomenon has jumped the shark. Don’t #BelieveWomen or anyone else until they present some evidence.

As is too often the case, it appears that only the wrongly accused suffer consequences, not their accusers:

King County Sheriff’s Sergeant Ryan Abbott said that investigators had not recommended charging the woman, even for her false allegations, due to concerns about her mental health, the Seattle Times reported.

In the unlikely event anyone tries to hold her accountable for her lies before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford is well positioned to use the same defense.

On a tip from Artfldgr


John Mc Gowan said...

Can therapists, Counselors et al, mimic the language of sexual abused victims? Not that they themselves have been abused but because they have being exposed to such language over many years and the untrained with limited knowledge may think that they (therapists, counselors and other professionals) may have experience abuse.


Shelley said...

So my question about her 2nd door...

Is it for her to feel like she has a safe get away or is it for a separate unit.

She did say she hosts google interns in the separate unit.

And what supposed assault victim is going to open up her home to a bunch of random strangers.

So first which is it. Is it for you to have a back up exit. Or is it a separate unit that you rent out.

And if you rent it out, how did you feel comfortable having strangers right there attached to your home.

Anonymous said...

A couple of interesting recent developments.

Ford has been nominated a distinguished alumna award for "speaking truth to power"


And RAINN (Rape Abuse Incest National Network) has noted a 338% increase in reported sexual abuse claims since Ford's testimony


Kitt said...

OT: another fake hate criminal busted.

Anonymous said...

Just to show just how far it's going ... there is a plan for "witches" to meet on Oct 20th to hex Brett Kavanaugh.


Anonymous said...

So does MK-Ultra have a counterpart in microwave transmissions
suffered by our diplomats abroad in dangerous countries?

Anonymous said...


Watch Live: Tammy Moorer Kidnapping Trial Day 4

Anonymous said...

Not "counterpart" but there are Electro Magnetic Pulse weapons or Directed Energy Weapons. Whether or not they were used against the diplomats is not known.



Anonymous said...

Anon 7:37

Most likely yes.

The technology has undoubtedly existed for years.


from linked Washington Post article from 2007:

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed for this article, the Air Force released unclassified documents surrounding that 2002 patent -- records that note that the patent was based on human experimentation in October 1994 at the Air Force lab, where scientists were able to transmit phrases into the heads of human subjects, albeit with marginal intelligibility. Research appeared to continue at least through 2002. Where this work has gone since is unclear -- the research laboratory, citing classification, refused to discuss it or release other materials.

The official U.S. Air Force position is that there are no non-thermal effects of microwaves. Yet Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, tagged microwave attacks against the human brain as part of future warfare in a 2001 presentation to the National Defense Industrial Association about "Future Strategic Issues."

"That work is exceedingly sensitive" and unlikely to be reported in any unclassified documents, he says.

Shelley said...

OT Isabel Celis

Some interesting info in an article I just read.

Sergio and Becky said Clements looked familiar, but they did not know how

Police think he may have asked the Celis family about buying their car

They did say a man did inquire about buying their car

Clements admitted he was at the Celis residence

Clements repeatedly called the Celis house in October and November of 2011

Clements phone was in that area the morning Celis disappeared (I wish we knew time - was it the 6/6:30 time the neighbor heard men talking)

So we clearly see a connection. He called the home “repeatedly” and it amazes me that someone asked about their car that was not for sale and clearly this man called repeatedly yet does not seem like they ever mentioned this person

Clearly these parents are connected to this man

Peter Hyatt said...

I believe there is a connection between the father and the indicted accused.
It could be degrees separation, but I believe it’s there.


John Mc Gowan said...

Is there anything in there language that may suggest a debt owed for one reason or other?

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

^^ re Celis


Shelley said...

Curious what you guys think about the Jessica Chambers case.

I listened to police tapes to see if I could type up some statements by Quinton Tellis but they are very hard to understand.

But I am watching the story now on Oxygen and while it does not tell us what the reporter asked. this is what he said. At this point they have had 2 hung jurys.

I noticed his use of this... a couple of times. He does not say he did not kill her. But again, I am not sure what was asked. They only shared the audio of his statement.


The people that know me, they know that I’m not this type of person to do anything like this.
I’ll just be glad when all this is over with.
I put it all in god’s hands that the jury can find a verdict of not guilty
I ain’t hurt no one
I am a good-hearted person

Shelley said...

OT case update on the McStay family.

They now are saying they thing Summer was raped. No other details.

elf said...

Wouldn't they just have to remember/repeat a true account from onw of their patients? Kind of like a type of plagerism?

elf said...

Witches were supposed to be president elect Trump too. I think it backfired on them lol

Anonymous said...

Totally random question but can you do a statement analysis of the Keli Lane case in Australia. Thanks we are all baffled.

Unknown said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Totally random question but can you do a statement analysis of the Keli Lane

do you have a statement from her to analyse?

Anonymous said...

Duping delight: