Says she wrote the letter; doesn’t know how it was released to the press.
9/27/18 – While watching Ms. Ford testify today I’m disgusted on more than one level. She seems nice enough even though the massive holes in her testimony remain. It is entirely possible something happened to her, and it seems that may be the case. So, here is why I’m disgusted.
I’m disgusted because we may never know what happened to her.
I know may women who have been victims of assault and it is horrible. The impacts of such experiences can be life long. I would love for her to have some sort of closure by having a fair trial and discovering the truth of what happened.
Sadly, this is most likely impossible because she doesn’t remember much. That is not her fault, nevertheless it is the fact of the matter.
We can’t convict anyone with no evidence!
This has been clearly used as a political tool.
Since we have so little information on the event from the accuser, there is not much we can do, even if we were in a court of law and all of us were sitting on the jury.
She revealed in her testimony that she tried to bring this information forward before Judge Kavanaugh was even selected, while he was still being considered.
Why was it ignored then? That makes me angry, too.
In her testimony she indicated that the attacker was unable to get her clothes off because he was very inebriated and due to the fact that she was “wearing a one-piece bathing suit” under her clothes. I was shocked by that statement.
Wait…what? That sounds like there was no rape, that this drunken jerk, whoever it was, assaulted her and groped at her. That, as awful as it is (I’ve experienced it myself), is not nearly as bad as rape. All of this, this horrific circus, is about a drunk guy groping her? Again, I’m shocked by this revelation.
At times, I was a little bothered by her demeanor. She asked for coffee and sat there adding sugar and stirring it…The way she did it came off as if she was in a typical business meeting.
I also found her to be a bit squirrely, in spite of giving her grace for possible nerves and range of personality.
At times she seemed dazed and just…well, a bit odd.
All the other holes in her testimony that we already knew about remain as well.
She claims she never wanted her original letter released and that she doesn’t know who released it. Democratic operatives clearly had something to do with that since it is they who were in possession of the letter. That is horrible.
Senator Feinstein had the letter for at least six weeks, that she has admitted to, and never brought it to the attention of anyone in the confirmation hearing committee.
And, since I deal with counseling and spiritual warfare training, this last series of questions made by Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona sex crimes prosecutor, who was chosen to use the time allotted to Republicans, was particularly potent.
Mitchell: I’ve been really impressed today because you’ve talked about today…the neuro-biological effects of trauma. Have you also educated yourself that the best way to get to memory and truth in terms of interviewing victims of trauma?
Mitchell: Would you believe me if I told you that there is no study that says this setting in five minute increments is the best setting to do that?
Ford Counsel: “We can stipulate to that. Agreed.”
Mitchell: Did you know that the best way to do it is to have a trained interviewer talk to you, one on one, in a private setting and to let you do the talking, just let you do a narrative? Did you know that?
Ford: That makes a lot of sense.
Mitchell: It does make a lot of sense, doesn’t it. And, then to follow up, obviously to fill in the details and ask for clarification, does that make sense as well?
Mitchell: The research is done by a lot of people in the child abuse field, two of the more prominent ones in the sexual assault field are Geiselman and Fisher, who’ve talked about it and it’s called a cognitive interview. This is not a cognitive interview. Did anybody ever advise you from Senator Feinstein’s (D-CA) office or from Representative Eshoo’s (D-CA) office, to go get a forensic interview?
Mitchell: Instead you were advised to get an attorney and take a polygraph? Is that right?
Ford: Many people advised me to get an attorney. Once I had an attorney, my attorney and I discussed using the polygraph.
Mitchell: And instead of submitting to an interview in California, we’re having a hearing here today in five minute increments. Is that right?
Ford: I…I agree…
This absolutely nailed the fact that the Democrats were not in the least interested in Ms. Ford’s care or healing or comfort.
But, wait…She is supposedly a psychology professor and she didn’t know what the recommended protocol is for helping traumatized victims recover memories? That seems strange to me.
She testified that she was never told that the committee had offered to come to her in California so she wouldn’t have to fly to Washington, D.C.
They were only interested in utilizing the information in the way that they could devise as being most beneficial to them.
So, here’s my supposition.
It seems they knew the case was way too weak to gain much of anything…except in one scenario: to utilize it for chaos and time. So, rather than asking for an investigation right away, or setting up a cognitive interview to leave no stone unturned and gain the most facts possible, they set her up with an attorney (both attorneys stated that they are working pro-bono and do not expect payment, though, in attorney-speak, that doesn’t mean they haven’t already previously been paid something or that they wouldn’t accept “donations” for the cause), and a polygraph (she says she doesn’t know who paid for it).
Maybe they decided that the best use of this claim was to wait until the last possible second before the judge was confirmed, because it seemed he likely would be, and drop an indiscernible bombshell, something that probably will never be settled in any satisfactory manner.
Apparently two men have claimed responsibility for the attack but remain unnamed at this time. Did you know about this little detail??
On Sept. 24, the committee said that staff interviewed “a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint.”
Committee staff interviewed the man again the next day, on Sept. 25, according to the timeline. “He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail,” according to the committee.
On Sept. 26, the committee received “a more in-depth written statement” from the man they had previously interviewed. Committee staff also spoke by phone “with another man who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter.”
You would think that the “two sides of the aisle” would come together and try to get all the information they can as they try to move forward.
The Democrats called the new testimonies, that were reportedly rather “detailed”, “shameful and the height of irresponsibility.”
So what do we do here?
We have a man who is innocent until proven guilty. That is the law of the United States. And if you don’t like the sound of that, your tune will change drastically if you are accused of something serious, like rape, you did not do.
Unless there is proof, facts we can verify, we cannot treat any man or woman as guilty and make him or her bear consequences of a crime he or she is not proven to have committed!
In addition to that, the mindless mobs who want to harm Judge Kavanaugh, are guilty of “Wild West justice” and need to reacquaint themselves with the scores of men who have been falsely accused of rape and had their lives ruined.
Ask Barry Scheck, attorney and professor at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, who formed the Innocence Project for this very reason, to assist wrongly convicted felons.
This is not to say the accusers necessarily do this maliciously!
The mind is a very wondrous and interesting thing. A woman may swear in a trial that a named man was the person who raped her. Yet we have case after case where DNA proved otherwise.
There could have been some mental imprint in Ms. Ford’s mind for some completely unrelated reason that that thought is being attributed to Judge Kavanaugh.
Ask any police detective about eye witness testimony; it is not as reliable as you think. That’s why we need multiple witnesses to a crime.
That said, I felt the hearing was handled well, that Mitchell handled the questioning sensitively, and that Ms. Ford was treated fairly.
Does that take away the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach? No. I doubt we’ll have a satisfactory end to this. Ms. Ford has been used abominably. And, I can’t imagine what Judge Kavanaugh’s family is feeling.