OPINION: Key Details Of Dr. Ford’s Testimony Are Contradicted By Common Sense

Photo by Melina Mara-Pool/Getty Images

Font Size:

Most people who have seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony against Judge Brett Kavanaugh tend to believe that some assault happened, somewhere, at some time, by someone. But when her various statements are examined closely, common sense tells us that the details are unclear even in her own mind, and those she claims to recall are refuted by common sense.

1. It is highly unlikely that Ford told her husband of a sexual assault around 2002, as she testified.

This may seem like a strange detail with which to begin our scrutiny, but sometimes small details like this one show the witness’s acknowledgment that her story does not make sense and needs to be shored up with buttressing detail. Ford provided this detail to forestall in advance the obvious inference that she did not think of this assault for 30 years, whereupon she “recovered” her memory during couple’s therapy in 2012.

But common sense tells us that if she really remembered the assault in 2002 (when she was newly married and claims to have told her spouse), she would not have mentioned the assault without detail:

FORD: I think the halibut looks good. By the way, I was sexually assaulted as a teenager.

HUSBAND: A sexual assault, you say? Pass the butter, please.

Obviously, her mention of a sexual assault would have led to a more detailed discussion of such an important topic. As her therapy notes reportedly suggest, it makes far more sense that Ford’s horrific memories and associated emotions were first recovered as a result of her counseling sessions in 2012–2013.

2. If her memories were recovered, they are inherently unreliable, even if fervently believed.

This basic commonsense conclusion needs no amplification. The alleged assault was dredged up in her memory but is unreliable in its details. Kavanaugh’s name does not appear in the extensive therapy notes, and Ford now refuses to produce them after giving them to Emma Brown of The Washington Post.

3. Ford’s written statement, tested by polygraph, lacks crucial details to which she testified.

Ford, as her lawyers and polygraph examiner likely advised her, did not write any details that would cause the needle to show clear deception. Her statement, for instance, said only that the incident happened “in [the] 80s.” The word “early” before “80s” was crossed out. Clearly, she was not sure if the incident happened in 1981, 1982 or 1983 (“early 80s”) or 1984–1985.

Her assailants were named only “Mark” and “Brett.” Since she likely does not remember names from 36 years ago, she could have called them “Jane” and “Joe” and the machine would likely not sense clear deception. Interestingly, she refuses to produce the graphs, which may show blips. But she fully named no one, and did not mention Leland Keyser or P.J. Smyth, nor did she write the keywords, “I know that ‘Brett’ was, in fact, Brett Kavanaugh.”

She also omitted in her statement the key allegedly corroborating detail of seeing Mark Judge later at the Potomac Village Safeway. The Mitchell Report noted Ford’s earlier statements were that the incident was in her “late teens” and “in the mid-1980s.”

So Ford could truthfully recall far less on polygraph than that to which she later testified.

4. Common sense tells us that Ford fabricated her seeing Mark Judge at the Potomac Village Safeway.

After working with her lawyers and writing a very vague polygraph story, Ford testified to more fulsome detail, including seeing Mark Judge at work at the Potomac Village Safeway “six-to-eight weeks” after the incident, seeming corroboration. She then suggested that someone “with … resources” investigate this timing.

Judge did in fact work at a store for three weeks, immediately prior to the August 22, 1982, football training camp. So this is sound corroboration, correct?

No, and, in fact, our common sense suggests fabrication. This detail was not tested through her polygraphed statement. Rather, Judge’s stint at the market in three weeks of August was publicly available in Judge’s book, as her lawyers certainly knew.

5. Ford was not “outed” against her wishes but was complicit in her last-minute appearance.

Ford was administered a polygraph examination on August 7, 2018, likely set up a week earlier, two months before she testified. Common sense tells us the only purpose of the examination would be to use it when she came forward to accuse Kavanaugh.

If she truly wished to remain anonymous, and not testify, such a polygraph would have been meaningless. She was complicit, therefore, in her last-minute appearance, where she hoped her story would not be closely examined.

6. Ford is refusing to release all pertinent therapy notes because they will cast doubt on her claim.

While Ford broadly uses her therapy remembrances as supposed corroboration, she has refused to release them to the Senate, even though she provided them to The Washington Post, which, in turn, will not release them.

The notes will likely show a process of piecing together details of an event only vaguely recalled. While her husband and friends conveniently say she mentioned Kavanaugh by name at the time, the notes would likely contradict that claim. They would likely also show that she had not thought about the details for 30 years.

Common sense would tell us that a failure to produce these pertinent documents gives rise to the inference they would hurt the party failing to produce them.

7. Ford would not testify about other traumatic events.

Ford was highly evasive when Ms. Mitchell asked her if there were other events contributing to Ford’s claimed PTSD.

If there were other vaguely recalled incidents, the memory of which she was also recovering in therapy, this would cast doubt on her story’s reliability, and help explain her obvious pain.

8. The details of the alleged sexual assault do not ring true.

None of us should make light of, or casually wave off, claims of sexual assault. But the assault Ford describes is baffling. None of it comports with a commonsense understanding of such assaults.

The alleged assault occurred during an intimate early evening gathering. Two strong football players allegedly could not remove or rip any clothing, an ability that should not have been hampered by drunkenness. And the second assailant supposedly jumped on the first assailant several times, while both were laughing and wrestling with one another.

These seemingly recovered details suggest that Ford in therapy began placing a far more sinister interpretation on what may not have been remarkable at the time, and not “seared” in memory.

9. Dr. Ford has no credible explanation as to how she came to be at the party or how she made it home.

Corroborating details matter. She cannot say who drove her home, who could corroborate at least an early exit, if not her claimed anguish. Moreover, Ford previously knew none of the gathering except Leland Keyser, who denies being present.

10. Leland Keyser’s denial of involvement is by itself game, set and match.

Ford’s only plausible connection to this gathering was Leland Keyser. It appears clear that Kavanaugh and Keyser did not know each other at any time. If, hypothetically, Mark Judge invited Keyser, do we really believe he would help to rape her good friend?

Are we to believe that Keyser would not have learned of an attempted rape to her good friend in such an intimate setting?

Since Keyser says she was not at the gathering described, and never met Kavanaugh, Ford’s story cannot be believed, as it pertains to Kavanaugh, even though something may have happened sometime.

11. Summary

Common sense tells us that Dr. Ford sincerely believes that some incident happened 36 years ago, but, despite her protestation to the contrary, is not really sure that Kavanaugh was an assailant, or even that it occurred in 1982. Ford will likely refuse a searching FBI polygraph, and for good reason.

Common sense also tells us that the furor on the left about the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is so intense that it is engaging in willing suspension of disbelief. But Ford’s claim about Kavanaugh should be disbelieved.

John D. O’Connor is the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the co-author of “A G-Man’s Life: The FBI, Being ‘Deep Throat,’ and the Struggle for Honor in Washington” and is a producer of “Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House” (2017), written and directed by Peter Landesman.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.