New Details Raise Serious Doubts Over The Credibility Of The Ford Polygraph

Leonarde_Keeler_1937.jpgThe passage of a polygraph by Christine Blasey Ford has been a key factor for many in believing her story — a fact cited by various members of Congress.  New details of the polygraph however have been released and some contradictions are being cited within Ford’s account. However, my main interest is the polygraph itself, which does not sound like any legitimate polygraph that I have encountered. I have handled a number of polygraph cases in my career and the description of these questions are nothing short of bizarre as a reliable test.

 

The examination was administered by former FBI agent Jeremiah Hanafin in a Hilton hotel in Maryland. The polygraph was administered either the day or the day after Dr. Ford went to a family funeral for her grandmother.

It appears that Hanafin worked off a handwritten statement that Ford signed.  That statement refers to “4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party.  That is different from her account to the Committee that the party consisted of “me and 4 others.”  An earlier report indicated that Ford told a therapist that there were four boys in the room when she was assaulted.  She blamed the therapist as misunderstanding or poorly recorded her statement for the discrepancy.

None of the witnesses have supported Ford’s account and the most recently named witness, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford’s at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, denies knowing Kavanaugh or remembering being at the party with him.

The most notable aspect of the story however is the only two “relevant” questions asked by Hanafin “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

Those questions would be effectively useless in an actual case.  Good polygraphers ask specific, clear, insular questions.  They do not use overarching language.  He did not ask specific questions on whether she was assaulted by Kavanaugh — a rather curious omission.

It is not natural way to frame such an examination and the question is whether the examination was framed or limited by Ford’s counsel. The guidelines discourage such crafting or the dropping of details:

When the questions are agreed upon, and they exclude details or the wording is a bit unusual, be sure the missing details and a discussion of the development of the relevant questions are in the report. Details that were agreed upon, but were deleted from the question, must be in the report. Persons who were not present may criticize the relevant question wording because the report does not adequately describe the question development.

I have never met a polygrapher who would structure questions like these for use in a test.  If this is truly the content of the examination, I would view it as largely useless in an actual case.  None of this means that Dr. Ford is not telling the truth, but rather the details released, thus far, raise serious questions over the administration of the examination.

 

152 thoughts on “New Details Raise Serious Doubts Over The Credibility Of The Ford Polygraph”

  1. Final result on the Ford complaint. It was a hit job.

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

    Full Mitchell report is in along with the timeline at https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389821761/content#from_embed

    It makes a bunch of the anti Kavanaugh commenters on this blog into liars. Anything is possible but the cr-p being thown around by Diane and a host of others is exactly that cr-p.

    1. “RACHEL MITCHELL IS NOT VERY GOOD AT PROPAGANDA”

      October 1, 2018/124 Comments/in Law /by emptywheel

      Excerpt:

      https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/10/01/rachel-mitchell-is-not-very-good-at-propaganda/

      “The Senate Judiciary Republicans’ hand-picked sex prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has released a report that is generating the desired headlines from credulous journalists. It should take reporters no more work than to compare what Mitchell claims in her memo with what actually happened last Thursday to declare it a sham report. But since journalists are reporting it as an honest submission, I guess I’ll have to debunk it.

      MITCHELL’S REPORT MAKES NO MENTION OF JULY 1

      Start with the fact that Mitchell’s report makes no mention of the July 1 get-together that included all of the boys Christine Blasey Ford has claimed were at the event where she was assaulted. Here’s how Mitchell got Brett Kavanaugh to confirm that fact in the hearing.

      1. Don’t see a direct connection though one can amuse themselves by reading a lot of gobblygook that means nothing. Don’t know which Anonymous this is, but it is best for you to stay anonymous without any type of alias because the type of logic used in this hit piece is directed toward imbeciles.

    2. Allan – the bullet points are bad enough, but the time line is enough to put DiFi and her staff in prison.

  2. This is very curious to me, too.

    I also understand that control questions are usually asked, with instructions for the person to intentionally lie in responding, so that the examiner can get a reading of their body functions when they lie. Another point I have also been told is that a minimum of two tests are run, to establish that there is a consistency of results.

    So I would ask if she was only given one run-through on the questions, and whether any details are missing from the report. Because so far, the report is worth less than the paper it’s written on.

    1. kevinbeck2015 – supposedly she was crying through the whole thing. How the hell are you going to get a reading?

      1. The polygraph wasn’t to find out the truth rather it was to provide an argument for those that don’t want to think and don’t care what the polygraph showed.

  3. You said: “…only two “relevant” questions asked by Hanafin “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?” CORRECT. I’m wondering this: Christine Blasey Ford signed her handwritten statement. The handwritten statement that I have seen does not have Kavanaugh’s name on it. Could it be that when she says her statement is true, she is referring to only her handwritten statement?? This is something that Clinton would do, i.e., “It depends on what is, is.” She could honestly say that her handwritten statement is true since it does not list Kavanaugh on the handwritten document.

    I looks like there are two statements. A typed one. And a handwritten one. She signed the handwritten one. What I have seen shows a handwritten statement which does not include Kavanaugh’s name. What do you think? Could this be how she who is Psychologist and a Democrat activist with Democrat activist lawyers put one over on all of us??

    1. Phil Baer – two things. 1) she has horrible penmanship. 2) I think the polygraph was a setup. It is all Kabuki Theatre, but bad Kabuki Theatre.

    2. Looks like I was mistaken and Brett’s name does appear on the handwritten copy. Even though I read it several times, I completely missed his name. However, I still maintain that the polygraph is quite suspect.

  4. As a federally trained polygraph examiner since 1985 I to have serious issues with this examination. Not only the format but Ford states she cried throughout the test. Impossible to give a legitimate exam to someone crying.

    1. She said she sat for the polygraph on the day of her grandmother’s funeral. If that wasn’t strange enough, she mumbled something in her testimony like, “or the day after, I’m not sure”…

  5. Geo Soros paying to organize these protests

    I wonder why a billionaire wants to fund one social movement instigating chaos in America after another?

    Maybe it’s because a divided disunified and chaotic society, makes easier pickings for billionaires like Geo or his like from Silicon Valley?

    1. Aha! He was also on the grassy knoll; running Psyops into Benghazi; had something to do with the foreign chick you wackjobs keep mumbling about; oh, and he put coal in your stockings.

      this is to “this soros cat is peeping over my back fence” kurtzie

      1. i don’t know about all that but he broke the pound. he’s a billionaire nation wrecking global-parasite speculator and anybody that would take a nickel from his hundreds of cutouts to pitch a protest is a foolish pawn.

        like you Mark M a mouthy, slanderous, scoffer with no ability to communicate anything beyond mockery

        https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp

        socalled charity really just social engineering, nation-wrecking psyops, as you say

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/business/george-soros-open-society-foundations.html

  6. Demeanor of a testifying party is the most subjective of judgments and many judges use that as a tertiary decision-making point if physical evidence and independent sensory witness testimony is absent or inconclusive. Here we have no physical evidence and the sensory witnesses don’t corroborate the accuser. Ford makes a emotional — if not compelling — witness to me. (As I predicted last night, the “cross-examination” by Phoenix prosecutor Rachel Mitchel, was sadly deposition like and ineffective*). But given the dearth of details, the lack of any corroboration, the comically unilluminating polygraph, and the suspiciously political timing of the charges, I’d say Ford et als have failed to advance the ball past the 50-yard-line.

    * Is it so hard to ask these in a five minute chunk:

    You don’t remember the number of the house, right?
    You don’t remember the street, right?
    Despite living there you don’t remember the neighborhood either?
    The look of the outside of the house is a mystery, too?
    You can draw the floor plan but we’d have no way of checking that for accuracy either, right?
    You don’t recall the number of people there having given three conflicting statements about the number, gender and identity, right?
    You’re wrong in the Feinsten letter, right?
    You’re wrong to the polygraph advisor trying to get to the truth, right?
    You’re wrong in statements to the press, right?
    But today, 30-odd years after the fact you’re correct?

    etc.

    They just write themselves.

      1. Thank God this guy is a FORMER police officer. I can see why he is no longer on the force, assuming he ever was. I.Q. of 85 at best.

    1. Mespo, I only heard a small portion of the questions asked of Ford during the questioning and they sounded lame to me. I didn’t hear the rest so I can’t comment on the rest but if she didn’t pound into the questioning all the details unknown by Ford, all the discrpencies and how the attorney was obtained along with the polygraph then the lawyer was an idiot. The questions you raise are so basic.

      But then you couldn’t do the interrogation for you are an old white man with common sense that knows the law.

      1. Allan – part of the problem was she could only ask questions 5 minutes at a time, then Ford got a breather while the Democrats patted her on the back.

        1. What I heard was lousy and she didn’t even use all her time in the segment I heard.

          They should have been hammering in on all the inconsistencies (maybe they did but I didn’t hear it) likw

          What happened to your yearbook and all your social accounts? Didn’t you use social media to promote yourself? Why do you think they disappeared? Did your lawyer or anyone else speak to you about the year book? Did you or anyone you know have anything to do with their disappearance from public view?

          1. Right thoughts, but needs better wording: You deleted all your social media right before this hearing, right? You talked to your lawyers before you did that, right? You know your high school yearbook has vanished from the internet, right? Can we see your copy? Oh, that’s gone too. Like I said they write themselves.

            1. “Right thoughts, but needs better wording:”

              Exactly. This type of examination requires a mixture of experience and brain power. That is why I would use a competent lawyer and you seem to fit the bill.

              I haven’t had a chance to search out what the thinking process was, but maybe the committee majority knew where the votes stood and didn’t want a hard press.

              In the real world I would prefer Ford to have been hammered because character assassination needs to have consequences.

              1. Allan – Mitchell led her on and then nailed her to the wall. If you look at the videos I left Cindy and Squeeky, you will see exactly what she did. She really is very good at her job. Here is the video again for your view pleasure. 😉 Tell me what you think of Mitchell after you watch this.

                1. Paul, I don’t know what the game plan was. If the votes were in favor of BK and a hard press could change those votes against him then it matters little on that issue. If the votes were against BK I don’t know that this type of attack would be able to change those minds. I dont’ think from what I have seen that the attorney did a good job of attacking Ford’s credibility and I think there were questions that existed that could test Ford to see if such attacks on credibility were worthwhile without causing harm.

                  For the good of society and preventing character assassination I don’t think this was a good interrogation. Look at how this incident affects young men in this age group. Look at how it affects relationships. The PC culture is death by gradual strangulation.

                  1. Allan – did you watch the OJ trial and the cross of F. Lee Bailey. People said he did a horrible job. I kept telling people, they have something in their back pocket. Bailey just strung him out on a limb. So when they delivered the tapes with the detective saying the n word over and over and over, the trial was over. He was toast. The evidence he brought in was toast and his career was toast.

                    1. I didn’t have time to watch all of that stuff with OJ, but my knowledge of Bailey (through a number of his colleagues) is that he was a drunk and was frequently unprepared and not totally sober. I liked at least one of his books but that is it. He was also arrogant landing his Lear Jet at an airport whose runway was not built for that type of jet

                    2. mespo – still, they had those tapes before his cross. He set those tapes up. Mark Fuhrman was a cooked goose. It seems the defense had stuff they didn’t use because they didn’t want to confuse the jury. The blood on the stockings in the bedroom had a perservative in it. They decided not to use that evidence.

                    3. Has anyone ever established why Mark Furhman was called to testify? He had a partner named Roberts who could have testified.

                    4. DSS – it was a judgment call by Marsha Clarke, I think. They just wanted the connection to the blood drops, the glove and the entry to the house. Once Bailey got done with him and they played the tape (I think they only played one), Fuhrman was toast, the blood drops were toast, the glove was toast and the entry into the house was toast. After that it was fruit of the poisonous tree.

                2. Paul:

                  She was so “good at her job,” the Senators cut her off. She was obtuse, pedantic, impossible to follow and lost control of the witness several times. She asked few leading questions. In short, that’s D work.

                  Here’s one comment from a colleague: “She was out of her element,” said one defense attorney who knows Mitchell and asked not to be named. “Usually, she coddles the putative victim and excoriates the defendant and his witnesses. Her job for SJC Republicans is exactly opposite. And she has no second chair and staff with her at her table. Recipe for looking bad.”

                3. OMG, this person who is critiquing Fords behavior is a nutcase. She is clearly uncomfortable, scared even, out of her element. What do you think she should look like? She’s about to have every biy of herself laid bare in front of the World, she knows irt, she’s a Dr. that is very aware of wwhat people do to victims in these situations. Y’all must be such BRAVE BULLIES. [blech on you all]

                  1. Becka G – Dr Ford was part of a consortium, according to her testimony, which included herself and all of her attorneys. She had more counsel than a Mafia Don. And as a practiced lecturer, this should be old hat.

              1. Allan:
                I like Andy’s work and I read the article upon your referral. His questions are good, but like every lawyer, I like mine better. Andy is so wordy! 😀

                1. “Andy is so wordy!”

                  I’m glad someone else said that. I often wonder if he is paid by the word like Charles Dickens :-). His ideas are great but could be compressed into less than one-half. His opinions, however, are quite valid and yes your wording was better than his :-).

      2. She was atrocious as I predicted she would be. She might have been restrained by the Republicans on the committee but even with that she sounded like a new associate at their first deposition. Not a cross-examination by any stretch.

        1. Thank you for verifying what I have seen happen time and time again. The initial accusations, her letter, her discussions with all people about the inconsistencies should have torn her apart or at least demonstrated that one could not trust any of her recollections. She had a generic history that could occur anytime, anyplace, by anyone, to anyone with all that was necessary was to fill any name desired that existed within those parameters.

    2. Mark,
      I may have heard it wrong but I thought I heard Ford state that she had seen Kavanaugh at 4 or 5 other parties after the night of this alleged incident. Do you recall that? I kept wondering why Mitchel didn’t ask her why should would risk seeing BK and Judge again and again if she was so traumatized at the first encounter.

        1. mespo – I love the name Piggly Wiggly, but we don’t have them here. We are final getting White Castle though. 😉

        2. Here’s the exchange from the transcript. It’s not clear whether these other interactions were before or after the alleged assault.

          MITCHELL: OK. Can you describe all of the other social interactions that you had with Mr. Kavanaugh?

          FORD: Briefly, yes I can. There were during freshman and sophomore year, particularly my sophomore year which would have been his junior year of high school, four to five parties that my friends and I attended that were attended also by him.

          MITCHELL: Did anything happen at these events like we’re talking about, besides the time we’re talking about?

          GRASSLEY: You – you can answer that question then I’ll go to Senator Harris. Go ahead and answer that question.

          FORD: There was no sexual assault at any of those events. Is that what you’re asking?

          MITCHELL: Yes.

          FORD: Yes, those were just parties.

          MITCHELL: Or anything inappropriate is what I meant (ph).

          FORD: Well maybe we can go into more detail when there’s more time, I feel time pressure on that question, yes.

          MITCHELL: OK.

          FORD: Happy to answer in further detail if you want me to.

          GRASSLEY: I’m sorry, go ahead and finish answering your question.

          FORD: Oh OK. Did you want me to describe those parties or…

          (CORRECTED COPY – CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

          (UNKNOWN): Shouldn’t we leave this to the next round, Mr. Chairman?

          GRASSLEY: Answer the question.

          FORD: I’m just happy to describe them if you wanted me to and I’m happy to not. It’s just whatever you want.

          MITCHELL: Maybe this will —

          FORD: Whatever is your preference.

          MITCHELL: — cut to the chase. My question is was there anything else that was sexually inappropriate, any inappropriate sexual behavior on the part of Mr. Kavanaugh towards you at any of these other functions?

          FORD: No.

          MITCHELL: OK.

  7. This lady is a liar. She makes stuff up as she goes. Her parents lost to Judge Kavanaugh. His mom. She is going to hell. No christian lies in reverence to who God is and Jesus Christ.I remember when a state building under Hillary Clinton has a sex slave trade in it. And Bill Clinton raped a woman as governor. Were are their cases at in front of the senate commitee?

  8. Ms. Ford allegedly serves as a psychology professor. She obviously has read so many sexual abuse stories that her mind has jumbled her experiences as a young adult, likely including sexual assault, with people of whom she was aware in high school.

    She’s not lying, just mentally unbalanced.

    1. she seems sincere. perhaps she was assaulted. that is sad. but there is no proof that it was Kav. and she does not seem all that sure it was him actually. so move on and take the vote.

      1. I regret to inform you, but the sworn testimony of a single witness is more than enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal offense has occurred. Such is even more true here, where there is no burden of reasonable doubt. But the more salient question for you, your ilk, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make is: what is that ticking sound?

        this is to “I usually just ignore evidence I don’t like” kurtzie

        1. Why do you continue to maintain this fiction that you practice law? If you’re going to lie in your self-presentation, be creative and make the lies believable.

        2. This is not a criminal trial and the rules of evidence have not been applied. If this was truly a criminal trial with an experienced defense attorney Ms. Ford’s testimony would quickly be proven to be factually materially inconsistent.

        3. What is that ticking sound?

          The Republican party has 37 days to save itself from oblivion [a.k.a. Trump]. Only twenty of those days are days when The Senate will be in session, nineteen of them in October and no others before November 6th, 2018–midterm election day. Senate Republicans will fail, repeatedly, to get a simple majority to invoke cloture and proceed to an up or down vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

          If Trump withdraws Kavanaugh’s nomination, then Trump’s base will destroy the Republican party. If Trump does not withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, then Kavanaugh will destroy the Republican party. Either Trump withdraws Kavanaugh’s nomination or Trump doesn’t withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination. Either Trump’s base destroys the Republican party or Kavanaugh destroys the Republican party.

          Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock . . . whimper.

        4. go back to T and M court and pick up some DUI clients Mark you have something positive to offer society and commentary here is not it.

          here’s a former fed pros says what was described was a bungled attempt to make out not attempted rape

          https://youtu.be/KLTgUWqV8dk

        5. here’s a joke. i have read a hundred advance sheets that say something like what Mark said, over decades.

          Except all of them were reported within a year or two of the occurrence and usually within days or weeks.

          Americans who are not familiar with regular quotidien issues of crime and punishment and proprietorial choices may not get just how ridiculous this whole charade is.

          Mark probably gets it. He’s got some other strange axe to grind.

          Do you withdraw your false and defamatory slander of me Mark M that you maliciously made a few weeks ago here, that I “watch Hannity and bag his balls?”

          Why do you accuse me of being a ball-bagger? You’re not accusing me of being a golf caddie so it’s clear you mean that i have orally copulated with Hannity isnt that right?

          WHich is a completely false accusation./ Just like the other nonsense against Kav. Dems love to make up crazy sex allegations just like Mark M did against me here. And he has steadfastly refused to apologize or retract his false and defamatory remark that I had oral sex with Sean Hannity’s balls, whom I never met and moreover I do not watch his show

          See how easily they make up lies!

      2. Again, she hasn’t spent her career studying song birds or rats in mazes or people’s brain scans. She’s a clinician who trains clinicians. Be most surprising if she couldn’t fake sincerity.

    2. She’s lying.

      Neither she nor anyone in her circle have done the one thing that might get them to 1st base: produce some corroboration to her contention that BK and MJ were people with whom she was acquainted. The most parsimonious explanation for that is that Kavanaugh and Judge were not acquainted with her and quite possibly never knowingly crossed paths with her.

      1. I only caught a portion of her responses this morning. Did Ford want to know Mark Judge’s employment dates to help her narrow down the date of the alleged incident? Perhaps she should ask for the dates Kavanaugh’s calendar show him to be in town with no conflicts in his schedule. That should help her memory as well. [sarc: off]

  9. Jonny, you are disgusting and you will not get the nomination you seek for the SCOTUS even though you are pandering to Trump and the repubs. Sad you are so determined to be a Fox supporter of hypocrites and narrow-minded people. The country needs fewer of people like you.

    1. plankbohrgauss. I am sure you think Mr. Turley is brilliant and of high intellect when he goes against Trump which, happens frequently.

    2. Turley’s the host and you’re rude to insult him. Bug off if you don’t like it.

      I don’t have to agree with Turley to see he’s providing us with a nice place to express ourselves. Thank you Prof Turley

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: