Rachel Mitchell analyzes Christine Blasey Ford’s claims: “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

The examination of Christine Blasey Ford by Arizona Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell failed as a television event, but revealed many important details, casting serious doubt on Ford’s claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the summer of 1982.

Mitchell has now produced a detailed analysis, and it devastates Ford’s credibility and reliability.

The full analysis including timeline (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of the post.

While Ford superficially was “credible” in the sense that she came across as believing what she said, her own story relied on four other people being present that night at the house. All four of those people (including Kavanaugh) have denied any memory or knowledge of the party. To me that’s fatal to Ford’s story.

I wrote after her testimony, but before Kavanaugh testified, Christine Blasey Ford believes an untruth:

I think Ford has convinced herself she experienced what she experienced, but the need to inject psychological terminology makes me conclude that it is a memory that, while believed, is not necessarily the way the rest of us remember things.

Ford has refused to share her therapist notes, even though she shared some of them with the Washington Post. The 2012 couples therapy is the first time she claims to have told anyone about the assault. Kavanaugh’s name is not mentioned in the notes, which reflect Ford said there were four assailants, not two as she now claims.

As I wrote before, Ford’s therapist notes may be the key to this case, Kavanaugh Accuser’s couples therapy records, partially leaked to WaPo, may hold the key:

It seems odd for an alleged sexual assault victim to volunteer psychiatric records, particularly since the odious “nuts and sluts” defense so frequently is used against accusers. And why were only selective portions shared? This seems particularly calculating and defensively preemptive. My gut tells me the therapy records hold a key to what did or did not happen here. Having voluntarily shared a part of those records with a newspaper, it’s hard for Ford to argue confidentiality…. Without the full couples therapy records Ford already partially shared with the Washington Post, I’m not sure we’ll ever really know how and why this allegedly repressed memory was recovered, or whether it actually is a memory.

Ford came across during her testimony as someone with deep emotional problems, which may or may not be related to the alleged assault and Kavanaugh.

Mitchell went through these factors and more. Here is her conclusion:

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Here are some key observations, each of which Mitchell supports with detailed analysis:

➡ Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened

➡ Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

➡ When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.

➡ Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

➡ Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.

➡ Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

➡ Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

➡ Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

➡ The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

That last point is critical. Ford tailored her testimony to the developing political drama. The four extra days she obtained to prepare by falsely claiming, through her attorneys, that she was too scared to take an airplane, clearly were used to prep her story in anticipation of problems.

There was one moment in Ford’s testimony that still bothers me, and may have been a clue that she is not how she attempted to portray herself. I wrote after her testimony:

Ford basically accused her best friend Leland Keyser of submitting a false statement about the party not happening. She said Leland has health problems and just wanted her lawyer to take care of it. Mitchell never followed up on this bombshell. Incompetent. That Ford turned on her lifelong friend this way says perhaps more about Ford’s credibility than anything else that happened today.

I was willing to give Ford the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she honestly believed something that was false. I’m not willing to do that anymore.

—————————-

Analysis of Christine Ford Allegations and Timeline (Rachel Mitchell, Nominations Investigative Counsel) by Legal Insurrection on Scribd



