redbloodedamerica:

8 Reasons Why Christine Blasey Ford is NOT a “Credible Accuser”

The
accusations against judge

Brett Kavanaugh

are “credible.”  That’s the word that we
keep hearing over and over from the media ever since

Christine Blasey Ford

first
came forward – “credibly accused.”  But what does that mean?  Is a credible accusation
really the new term for an accusation that is not supported by any physical
evidence or witnesses?  Well, now the Arizona prosecutor who questioned Blasey Ford
has released a memo as to why she says Ford is not a credible accuser. 

Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned

Christine Blasey Ford

last week and started to question Brett Kavanaugh, before she was cut off
by Republican senators, has released a memo that states she does not believe
that Blasey Ford is a credible accuser.  In the memo, she states: “This
memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of
experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona…and is not influenced by anyone politically.”  Well, Mitchell then goes on to
explain a number of reasons why she believes that Ford is not a credible
accuser.  So, let’s take a look at this. 

#1 – Dr. Ford has not offered a
consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.  

• In the July 6 text of the
  Washington Post she said it happened in the “mid-1980s.”
• In her July 30th letter to
  Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7th statement
  said…that it happened one “high school summer in the early 80s,” but then she
  crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain. 
• “While it is
  common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how
  she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and a particular year.”

#2 Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh

as the
assailant by name. 

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given
  in her 2013 individual therapy notes. 
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she
  identified Judge

  Kavanaugh

  by name in 2012.  But at that point, Judge Kavanaugh

  ’s
  name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if
  Governor Romney won the presidential election.  (Keep that in mind). 

• “In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant.  Delay disclosure
  abuse is common and so this is not dispositive.

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

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a
  “sexual assault” before they were married. 
• But she told The Washington Post that
  she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning
  of their marriage.
• She did testify before the Senate, both times, she was
  referring to the same incident.

#4 Dr. Ford has no memory of key details
of the night in question – details that could help to cooperate her account. 

• She does not remember who invited her to the party.or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party in the first place. 
• She does not
  remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was
  located with any specificity. 
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how
  she got from the party back to her house. 

#5 Dr. Ford’s account of the
alleged assault has not been cooperated by anyone that she is identified as
having attended – including her lifelong friend. 

All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of this party whatsoever.  Most relevantly, in her first statements to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated
through counsel [again this is Ford’s lifelong friend] that, “[s]imply put , Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at
a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”  Now
in a subsequent statement to the Committee though council, Ms. Keyser said
this: “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.” 

#6 Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of
the alleged assault itself.

• Her account of who was at the party has been
  inconsistent.  We know that.
• According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy
  notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.  
• Now, she
  told The Washington Post that the notes [of that session] were erroneous because
  there were four boys at the party, but only two inside the bedroom.
• In her letter
  to Senator Feinstein, she said, “me and 4 others” were present at the
  party. 
• In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland
  Keyser and herself.  She could not remember the name of that fourth boy, and again
  remember no one else has come forward. 

#7 Dr. Ford’s description of
the psychological impact of the event also raises questions. 

She maintains that
she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of this incident. 

• Now the date of the hearing was actually delayed
  because the committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying.  But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.”  She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to
  visit her family.  She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica.  And
  she also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing. 

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

Miller then goes on to post in a timeline and details of all of that.

So what you need to know here is, first of all, some of you are going to be so angry
that we even brought these issues up, saying this is clearly partisan instead of
recognizing that all this is based on evidence or the lack thereof.  

What else do
you need to know that this case is actually a product of the echo chamber that
media has created in the US over the past 20 years.  The public, most you, have
made up your minds about whether or not you support Blasey Ford – not based on
what she has said, but simply because she made the accusation at all.  Many
supporters of Kavanaugh

first believed him, because he’s in their camp.  But
reality check here, most people following this story decided what is true and
now look back only on the evidence they want to see in order for it to fit the
outcome they want to believe.  

The justice system in our country it’s not perfect, no question; but it has been designed in a way that strives to make accusers
face the accused.  It requires evidence, it requires corroboration  and witness
testimony, and consistency when someone is accused.  In this case, none of that has
been needed.  Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is not credible, according to
someone who was once named Sex Crimes Prosecutor of the Year in her state by a Democratic
governor, and would not be considered credible in a court of law. Which is why
Democratic senators, you notice they keep referring to all this madness as “just
a job interview,” and not a trial; because if this were a trial, there is no
evidence to convict.  That’s a reality check.