THREAD: I spent some of the weekend reviewing several inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's account of what allegedly happened to her ~36 years ago. As I've said before, she did not strike me as someone who invented her story. But human memory is a tricky & unreliable thing...
Because there is zero contemporaneous corroboration of her allegation (and because her accusation is the only one that appears credible based on the available evidence, for reasons I detail in my analysis), her memory & her 2012 therapy notes form the crux of this case...
Discrepancies & inconsistencies therefore cannot be dismissed as nitpicky irrelevancies. On this score, I'll note four points -- all of which veteran sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell also enumerated in her thorough and dispassionate review of the evidence...
First: Per WaPo, Ford's '12 therapy notes say she was attacked by 4 boys. Ford says it was 2, but that there were 4 boys at the party. Her recollection of the # of attendees at the gathering has changed several times, & *nobody* she places at the house corroborates her claim...
Second: Per WaPo, Ford's therapy notes (no portions of which have been shared with the committee) say she disclosed that she was attacked in her "LATE teens." 15 does not qualify as 'late teens' under any reasonable definition...
Third: In her initial text message contact w/ WaPo this summer, Ford said alleged incident occurred in the *MID*-1980s. She wrote to Feinstein that it occurred in the early 80's. She then wrote for her polygraph that it was the early 80's, but scratched out the word "early"...
Fourth: In her letter to Feinstein, Ford said she remembers hearing her alleged assailants' conversations with other partygoers while hiding in the bathroom. During testimony, she said she doesn't remember that...
Mitchell also raises other points -- including fair Q's about Ford's detailed memories about non-assault details from the party (1 beer, 0 meds), but her total lack of memory of other significant non-assault details from just before & just after the party (car ride to/from)...
I summarize the aforementioned inconsistencies re: number of attackers, "early" vs "mid" 1980's, 15 vs "late" teens, & hearing vs. not hearing conversations HERE: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe…
As others have noted, various media "fact checks" of Kavanaugh testimony have been weak, misleading & tendentious on multiple points. See here: washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rachel…
And here:
And here:
I have no idea what did, or did not, happen in Maryland roughly three-and-a-half decades ago. A decades-old he said/she said cannot be adjudicated easily or perhaps at all here, considering the lack of evidence. The evidence we *do* have must be examined...
Mitchell's examination raises numerous causes for skepticism, which =/= "attacking" Ford, or calling her a liar. I have no interest in that. I have an interest in determining whether a lone, uncorroborated story from the 80s is sufficient to kill a SCOTUS nomination...
Based on what we know I don't believe it does, for reasons detailed here: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe…
And here: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe…
And here: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe…
Finally, for reasons I lay out in my post -- rooted in available & compelling evidence -- I do not view the other (uncorroborated, recanted or refuted) claims against Kavanaugh as remotely credible. Ford's is the one that matters: townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe… /end
