Opening statement by Dr. Ford has been very emotional and, yes, sympathetic. There is an immediate disconnect, however. She said that she thought an anonymous accusation would be sufficient for the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration in evaluating Kavanaugh.
That is on its face absurd. A middle-aged psychology professor ought to have enough foresight to recognize that destroying a man's life—especially if he deserves it—cannot be done this way. Now there are possible explanations.
One might be that she is so devastated and traumatized that she could not foresee that an investigation into her credibility and every angle of such a charge would be absolutely essential and, ultimately, inescapable.
What strains credulity in that case is that no one—husband, friends, congressional representative who first took the call—told her that she would escape scrutiny yet still "be helpful." Possible they did but she didn't listen.
But then again, it possible that she intended to sow doubt and discord because, as a psychology professor, she would be aware of the way such an allegation would be treated in light of #MeToo. Certainly possible.
And clearly she's conveying emotion. Could be absolutely real. Could be fake. We have no way of knowing. The only way to inform our reason is to ask questions of her to evaluate her credibility. Our current cultural climate makes it appear unseemly to ask such questions.
One unsettling aspect of Dr. Ford's testimony is that she relies on reconstructed memories. She just plainly admitted that. Because I recall X happening, it must've been because Y had also happened.
These assumptions may be true, or may not be. Over time, such assumptions become memories. Talking about the hippocampus doesn't change the fact that assumptions become memories indistinguishable from impressions of direct experience.
