There are three ways to look at the allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh. Her accusation is completely truthful, completely false, or a combination of being truthful about an assault but mistaken about the time, place, and most importantly, the assailant. We can’t know with absolute certainty which one of these is correct (at least for now), but there are enough surrounding facts and circumstances to assign a probability for each scenario:
1. Completely truthful –
For a surprising number of people (at least to us), this has been the only conclusion possible from the moment Christine Ford’s accusation became public. No other variables in the equation have mattered (timing of the accusation, evidence, corroboration, etc.). For them, it is an article of faith that “all survivors must be believed”. This position is unwavering and resistant to new information.
Dr. Ford’s story is compelling, but to believe it in its entirety necessitates assent to the following:
- Brett Kavanaugh is a person capable of the behavior she describes despite a lifetime of disciplined and exemplary public and civic service without any hint of similar behavior.
- Brett Kavanaugh successfully hid this alleged assault from seven FBI background checks, the first of which was much closer in time to the alleged assault.
- Brett Kavanaugh convinced his friends, one of whom directly witnessed the assault according to Dr. Ford, never to speak of it, even under penalty of felony.
The odds of all these suppositions being true are low by any measure. When you add in the suspect timing of Dr. Ford’s accusation and her failure to produce any contemporaneous evidence or corroboration from the witnesses she named as being present on the night of the assault the odds get even lower. Then factor in the available contemporaneous evidence produced by Judge Kavanaugh (e.g. his calendar) and sworn statements from all four named witnesses that they have no memory of the “gathering” described by Dr. Ford ever having occurred. With this evidence directly contradicting Dr. Ford’s assertions, the odds become vanishingly small that her story is completely truthful. Yet, the enduring position of nearly all Democrat Senators is that Dr. Ford’s story is completely truthful.
2. Partly truthful, but mistaken identity of the assailant –
This position has gained popularity as a “comfortable” explanation to adopt because it seemingly allows one to say both parties are truthful. But while a compromise position is often the correct overall course of action to take in resolving a dispute, it does not represent the “truth” when trying to determine how, or if, an event actually occurred. The truth can’t be split between two such diametrically opposed positions. In this case, the compromise is best described as believing that Dr. Ford was once sexually assaulted but holds Brett Kavanaugh innocent because she misidentified her assailant and cannot recall details of the event accurately. The deeply traumatic effect of such incidents is well known and could easily be affecting her recall. This scenario fits well not only as a feasible psychological/medical explanation, but also in public discourse. It is easy to understand, reasonable, and doesn’t alienate one extreme or the other.
However, as socially and politically acceptable as this position may be, there are a few sticking points here as well. Chief among them is Dr. Ford’s sworn testimony that she is 100% certain, without any doubt, that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant. There is no room at all in this statement to even consider a case of mistaken identity. This avowed certainty is especially significant given Dr. Ford’s academic background and specialty which makes her well aware of scientific documentation of inaccurate or false memories in cases similar to hers. Despite that professional knowledge, Dr. Ford elected to use a phrase that advertises her absolute certainty that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant.
This scenario of mistaken identity, or some close variant, now appears most likely to be the enduring public statement/position for most Republican Senators going forward. It permits them to avoid choosing sides and to appear compassionate to both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh simultaneously. Like #1 however, it has a low probability of actually being the truth. Dr. Ford’s carefully worded statements do not support the scenario. Also, this stance implies the existence of serious flaws in her memory and belief system that we must quietly accept and forgive, but not speak of.
The tortured attempts of Republican Senators, including Senator Collins, to try and articulate how they can believe Judge Kavanaugh and at the same time not disbelieve Dr. Ford is a telling indication of how improbable this scenario really is. This theory has slightly greater odds than #1, but not by much.
3. Completely untruthful –
For those people emotionally drawn to Dr. Ford’s claim, the possibly of it being a false accusation in such a high-profile case as this is too devastating to even contemplate. The forward momentum (and some of the integrity) of the “Me Too” awareness effort could be halted or even reversed. On the other hand, every bit of contemporaneous evidence that does exist in this case, circumstantial or otherwise, points to Judge Kavanaugh’s innocence.
If you remove the admittedly heavy weight of emotion attached to this case and dispassionately look at the timing of events as we know them, as well as the political and personal motivations of those who instantly latched on to Dr. Ford’s accusation without any hesitation, the most logical conclusion is that her story is fabricated. Any other explanation involves either the best kept secret of all time on the part of Brett Kavanaugh and his high school friends, or a complicated psychological condition in Dr. Ford that produced a genuine (but incorrect) memory of Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker. Both of these scenarios are much less likely than the simple explanation of deceit.
The only physical evidence that supports (indirectly at best) Dr. Ford’s claim of having been sexually assaulted by anyone are notes from therapy sessions in 2012. These notes have not been presented to investigators, only referenced. The Senate Judiciary Committee has requested a copy of these notes multiple times and has been refused each time on the grounds that they are “private”. Privacy notwithstanding, Dr. Ford has pointed to these records as corroboration of the reality of her assault, and as such are essential to her claim. Therefore, they must be produced. The committee and the public have no proof these notes even exist and if they do, what they actually reveal. It is illogical to take the existence and content of these notes completely on faith.
This third position, unlike #1 and #2 above, fully accounts for the deployment of the accusation at just the right time to have maximum effect as a political weapon. The exquisite timing of Dr. Ford’s claim was purposeful and aimed for maximum destructive effect. It strains credulity to ascribe Dr. Ford’s timing to an odd coincidence or incidental byproduct of a cathartic awakening or “civic duty”. Indeed, Dr. Ford herself acknowledges that her goal was to insert her accusation into the decision-making process regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Court.
A convincing fabricated story perfectly accounts for:
- the precision timing of the accusation.
- the presence of just enough detail to claim plausibility.
- the lack of just enough detail to force the accused into the position of proving a negative.
The odds that all three of these characteristics could have “randomly” accompanied a truthful account are extremely low.
Lastly, with faith and emotion as the only things buttressing the validity of her accusation, Dr. Ford needed to demonstrate at least some personal credibility in the hearing to show her integrity. That didn’t happen. She changed her testimony both before and during the Senate hearing as to the number of people present at the party, the location of the house where the party occurred, and the general layout of the interior of the home. Her previously expressed fear of flying (the reason the hearing was delayed for three days) was not nearly as debilitating as we were all led to believe. She stated she had no idea the chairman of the Committee had offered to travel to her home in California to take her testimony despite the fact that his offer was made publicly and reported on every media outlet. She was supported by four lawyers (two at the table with her) and apparently had no idea how/if they were to be paid. She had no idea what GoFundMe was. She randomly, and in our view gratuitously, injected scientific terms in answers to several questions (hippocampus, norepinephrine, epinephrine, neurotransmitter, etc.) as if to burnish her credentials. Her much-touted academic scholarship didn’t quite comport with her expressed ignorance of a “forensic interview” for memory recollection or the particulars of a polygraph test, both of which are outgrowths of the field of psychology and certainly germane to her personal situation. All of these things taken together do not supply objective credibility to a person leveling a charge so severe. Thus, it is our view that a fabricated story is the most likely scenario of the three we present.
Accepting this conclusion does raise some additional questions. Did Dr. Ford act alone in the creation of a false story or did she have help? Was the sequence of events that led to the public disclosure of the story pre-planned or was it random (a leak) as was testified to under oath? Given the enormous gravity of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and oversight of the proceedings, it is highly unlikely that Dr. Ford alone would be able to control the timing and sequence of events. There had to be participation by Senators on the Committee and/or their staffs, the most obvious candidate being Senator Feinstein. How much of the drama we saw played out in the last two weeks was the handiwork of players other than Dr. Ford? The close proximity of activist lawyers, “Me Too” sympathizers, Senators with presidential aspirations, and a full court press by the media against the general notion of constitutionally conservative Judges all lend credence to the existence of a complicit “team” behind Dr. Ford.
To determine if we are right or wrong, we’d like to see the following things:*
- An investigation to find out who leaked Dr. Ford’s letter to the media.
- An unredacted copy of the notes from Dr. Ford’s therapy sessions of 2012 as requested by the Judiciary Committee.
- An unredacted copy of the polygraph test materials (graphs, audio, video) as requested by the Judiciary Committee.
- Unredacted copies of all of the correspondence between Dr. Ford’s lawyers and any Judiciary Committee members as requested by the Judiciary Committee.
- An investigation into the claim that Dr. Ford did “coach” Monica McClean about taking polygraph tests. If true, this would be evidence of perjury.
If it is proven that Dr. Ford fabricated the story, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any US Senators or their staff members who knowingly participated in the fraud should be investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee. If guilty, they should be censured or expelled.
* We understand some or all of this information may not be made public because of privacy concerns, but the Judiciary Committee members (at the very least) need to see it.
One Response
Occam’s razor. I will only add a thought I presented on a previously related “the box travels” blog – anyone that has been through a ‘real’ traumatic experience (as she claims in this case) will not, will not, will not forget all the details immediately surrounding the event. They are crystal clear forever. It’s important to remember many people suffer from unrecoverable mental trauma.
Here’s a PTSD related quote I found from a Vietnam veteran:
“I do not want to take drugs for my nightmares, because I must remain a memorial to my dead friends”