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. Simply more dem manipulations to do anything but have Judge K approved. Even if they have to sacrifice a loosely hinged witness. All they care about is keeping Judge K of the Supreme Court. HA

    1. Polygraph means any “many grapes”, where “grapes” is a synecdoche for a vineyard with many grapevines. Grapevines, in turn, are a grand metaphor for “writing systems”, from which the suffixes -graph and -graphy derive. Such may also be the reason that words are said to have “roots.” So go ahead on and call me drunk on words. Hiccup.

  2. Not surprised that now with multiple accusations against the sexual predator kavanaugh, that a lean white supremacist leaning site would instead focus on only one part…… of only one accuser. Sad! But not surprised.

    I don’t know what really happened. No one here honestly does. But a reopened FBI INVESTIGATION would seem the best way to ferret out the truth. I’m not sure why all Americans would not support a FBI INVESTIGATION at this point.

    But with 11 angry white men, and a president himself previously accused of rape, the truth is the last thing they are interested in. Instead, its more likely they’ll follow lead of our weak host and attack, attack, attack the victims later today. Sadly, a shameful, embarrassing process for our country.

    1. I don’t know what really happened.

      That’s kind of important point given your 1st and last paragraph.

      He is a serial rapist…I have no clue what I’m talking about…you must listen to me, they’re all white supremacist serial rapists.

      Seek treatment before you no longer have moments of rational thought.

    2. It’s amazing how the libs cry after losing an election and what they are willing to do to keep killing the unborn.

    3. Not An Unindicted Co-Conspirator – if you had been following along, we have been discussing all of the accusations as they have appeared. We do not wait for Professor Turley to start a thread on it, we just jump into it. I went after her polygraph early on because of the way is was set up. I have taken her at her best story (repressed memory) which is herself and 4 boys and she is in her late teens. This story does not put Kavanaugh in the frame.

      The Rameriz story was patched together after 5 days with her attorney and she cannot find anyone to back up her story or storyline. Plus, she has told people even she doesn’t believe the story.

      Avenatti has gotten his client to admit to witnessing 10 episodes of gang rape and both not reporting it, but returning to the scene of the crime, 9 times. At the least she is a co-conspirator. How in the hell can the sisterhood stand behind her? They should be digging through her closet and burning all her pussy hats. They should be staking out her house with a noose, she allowed at least nine girls to be gang raped. And yet not one of those 10 girls seems to have reported being either raped or gang raped. What are the odds of that? And she cannot have been the only one to know this was going on. Why would girls go to those parties? Were they hoping to get gang raped? And this wasn’t spread around the schools? And why was she older than everybody else at the party? Was she supplying the girls?

      I know that in some Latino gangs when the girls get jumped in they have to have sexual intercourse with the male members of the gang, one right after the other. Is this a variation on that? Is this an initiation ritual?

      What I am going to say next is going to seem harsh, but it is heartfelt. After I read the reports of the 10 unreported gang rapes in the affidavit and them came to her claim of being drugged and raped, I thought “Divine Retribution!!!” Then I noticed the difference in her rape from the others she reported. The others had pulled a train, she was raped by two people. The others they were spiking the punch, she was drugged by unspecified drugs.

    4. another man came forward to the judiciary cmte to say he’s the man who had the encounter with Ford, not Kavanaugh. Eat your words and apologize to Kavanaugh, republicans, and women everywhere.

    5. There have already been 6 background investigations by the FBI, which uncovered nothing. An FBI investigation is not possible because these supposed crimes did not happen in the FBI’s jurisdiction. These were state level crimes, not Federal. I find it curious that the accusers will not file with the local police departments having jurisdiction to have their allegations investigated. Not one of the accuser’s accusations has been proven by evidence, facts, or contemporaneous corroboration. What is shameful and embarrassing for our country is that the Repubs have not put a stop to the Dem’s ploys in derailing the nomination of Kavanaugh. And it is extremely shameful for you to bring race into this; race has nothing to do with this; Ford’s lack of evidence does.Please, for the love of God, learn to think and analyze for yourself. Or go put on your little pink pu**y hat and keep swallowing the Dem propaganda like a good little sheep.

    6. NotAn is an embarrassment to the blog and itself. The FBI should be investigating who educated NotAn and proceed from there.

    7. im an angry white man and there are millions like me. the elected reps in DC better remember that and they better keep our side of things in mind. this is politics and if it’s all about groups, then yes, i want my group to win. no apologies for that.

      as for these accusers the whole thing is tardy and bogus and patently false.

    8. “But with 11 angry white men, and a president ….”

      What’s their race got to do with it? Oh, I see to you it does.

      1. funny thing about this one mespo: black men are perhaps wise about this and to a large degree, not with the democrats on this stupidity

  3. Personally, after seeing the actual note, I was appalled by the handwriting. I still have a dollar on she is a no show at 10 am.

      1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – the moment I saw her face on the tv reading her intro with McCabe by her side, I got on here and said I lost the dollar. I am a man of my word.

  4. Anita Hill testified that Thomas told her dirty jokes and made her uncomfortable and since she was such a bad EEOC lawyer she couldn’t do anything to stop him even after she stopped working for him and moved to a different state. As a reward for her incompetence she got tenure and a lifetime of liberal love. The payoff for Ford in Palo alto will be huge

  5. Why does a 37 year old hazy high school account enter into a Senate hearing as a credible anything appears ridiculous to me-I am amazed this lunacy has gone this far…it sounds like something out of a scene from ‘1984.’

  6. If lawyer Michael Avenatti can prove that there were “full moons” that coincided with 9 gang rape parties, then I will believe it.

    The allegations were detailed in an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury.

  7. If the Democrats are successful in stopping Kavanaugh, anyone else on the shortlist will get even worse treatment. The Democrats have an old saying, “stay ahead of the curve”.

      1. ha ha i cant even post on this blog without a Democrat partisan Mark M making up a false and defamatory slander about me. He said:

        “you want Hannity and bag his balls”

        I don’t watch Hannity

        I don’t bag his balls

        I am also not homosexual and falsely accusing me of such conduct is defamation per se.

        I have asked him to retract it her 20 times or more and he refuses.
        Now Mark M does not know me. He knows that his statement was fase untrue and defamatory. He said it and makes up new false quotes every day which he thinks are funny. THey are not.

        He attempts to intimidate people who disagree with him by slander and false attributions and mockery.

        So yes the readers can see how Democrats will use lies and slander, just like frequent poster Mark M does here.

  8. 2 men step forward to say Kavanaugh accuser may have mistaken them for the judge

    Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed late Wednesday that they spoke with two men who said they believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, may have mistaken them for the judge, according to a statement from the committee.
    More on this

    This went live with little or no comment as midnight eastern so many of you were already tucked in for the night.

    The Committee, it appears, did a DiFiDoble and have been interviewing these two since Monday and tit for tat didn’t mention it for three days. LMAO. Is it the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

    Kemo Sabe Tell me oh wise one how did you find out?

    Tonto trusty scout who sees through mountains answers. It was The talking drums.

    But those are in Africa!

    No Problem I borrwed Queens drummer.

    Both it was added verbally were asked to write a description and werec cautioned as to their legal rights More on this in the morning.

    No word on any changes in appearances for the morning it’s still Ford on

  9. The article headline reads like “New Details Confirm Water is Wet.” Of course the polygraph is unreliable. It only measures sincerity not truthfulness. Crazies do great on the poly just like sociopaths do. And what are most criminals? Hey, these courts are on to something.

  10. As the hour draws near will she appear? The latest pair of accusers are as bad as the Dems. The lady who the GOP has engaged to submit questions appears to be quite qualified to uncover the truth. If l was a Dem up for re-election I would have stepped up in front of a camera and separated myself from this group of misfits long ago.

    1. Zambini:
      She’s probably not qualified. She’s a prosecutor. They present cases and rarely cross-examine since most defendants are smart enough not to testify. Plus she’s a supervisor and rarely tries stuff anymore. There are exceptions to the rule like Trey Gowdy, but generally speaking you need a criminal defense lawyer who cross-examines liars all the time.

  11. Professor Turley you are going to lose your liberal card if you keep this up. They will be calling you a Nazi soon enough


  12. I did not vote for President Trump in the last election. I will not make that mistake again. Attempting to destroy a persons reputation, career, family, solely on the basis that you do not share the same political beliefs has really turned my stomach. Is there no dignity left in a Washington?

  13. So glad you’ve now decided to use Fox as your source. Let’s have the darling boy Brett take a polygraph. But no we must beleive him ….

    1. C’mon! You don’t have to believe him – or her – but for God sake man at least stick to “innocent until *proven* guilty”. Lose that and we’re all lost. Ford is the accuser and has the burden of proof – BK is the accused and has the presumption of innocence -and don’t give me that’s only applicable in a court of law. Sheesh. The phrase embodies a principle of western life that we all live by in every aspect of our lives, not just the court system. You wouldn’t want to be treated any other way, in any aspect of your life – your home, your job, your social life, anywhere, anytime. Not just appearing before a judge. And what I just enunciated is also a principle of western life – called the golden rule. Lose these deeper ideas and the western way of life is lost.

      1. Nonsense. This is a job interview. The applicant has to demonstrate fitness, especially for a position with instant lifetime tenure.

        A most modest amount of doubt ought to be enough to disqualify.

        1. A “job interview”? Where have you worked? It’s a Congressional hearing numbnuts — a government function where basic Westen values control the proceedings: Like due process and basic non authoritarian presumptions like innocent until prove guilty. Those values require that “he who asserts must prove.” That’s been the foundation for resolving all disputes since Socrates but, of course, the dummies populating the Left hate the West and have a better way. Kafkaesque.

          1. The faculty don’t think state and federal labor law apply to them. Law is for deplorables.

        2. Strike the words ‘has to’ there is no such requirement in the Constitution. The Senate may conduct itself any way it wishes.

          1. Michael Aarethun is absolutely correct and mespo727272 is, once again, completely wrong.

          2. Michael:
            So trial by ordeal would be perfectly acceptable if conducted but the Senate since the Constituion doesn’t say anything to stop it. Learn something new — and lamebrain — every day.

            1. mespo727272 — Read the Constitution.
              Advice and Consent doesn’t require any hearing what so ever.

              1. David that is the first thing on this blog you have said about the Constitution that is correct. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent. In the past hearings weren’t even held. The Democratic Senate has politicized the process injecting identity politics and other things to the detriment of the Constitution and the American people.

        3. Name for us when you’ve been accused in a job interview – and if you had been, you’d still want “innocent untiI *proven* guilty”. correct?

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me eleven citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – were you granted emeritus status?

            2. Poor deflection you hypocrite. So let me repeat, if *you* were accused of some type of crime during your ‘job interview’ ( a job where you were granted instant lifetime tenure) wouldn’t *you* want “innocent until proven guilty” to rule the proceedings?

            3. Based on the actions of many university professors I question the idea of tenure. Most Americans don’t get something like tenure but many professors have. That has led to the dumbing down of education.

              1. its not a bad institution lifetime tenure, not any more than a lifetime priesthood, just some people are bad and abuse it.

                in life you can’t reform everything. evil is in men’s hearts and will never go away. constant reforms often accomplish nothing worthwhile.

                1. I don’t care about lifetime tenure if my tax dollars aren’t supporting it. Otherwise lifetime tenure at most should be to very few exceptional people. Those on any university boards that are taxpayer financed are simply voting themselves perks at the country’s expense.

                  I can see no reason David Benson got tenure. He is relatively fungible and not a thinker. He got it because a group of people wanted to protect themselves. In the end the taxpayer and student all suffer from this type of university “wellfare”. They love this type of “corruption” because it benefits themselves at the expense of others.

                  1. He would have been granted it 40+ years ago, when the academic job market was softer. He worked in computer science, not one of the academic or vocational disciplines which assist you in thinking about public life.

                    Benson’s problem is that he views the world as composed of peers and others. We are not peers. The trouble is, he doesn’t know any more about public affairs than anyone who reads the papers, whether they be on a faculty, or they fill your prescription at Walgreen’s or they sell you insurance. He cannot really argue with you with the facility he would like, so he defaults to drive-bys and displays of superciliousness.

                    Contrast with Mespo, who argues for a living and whose work makes aspects of public policy quite palpable to him. Contrast with Mr. Spinelli, who knows something about the grittier aspects of social relations. They don’t play games or strike poses.

                    1. Titles are meaningless. We can only deal with what the alias says and its consistency. Mespo’s alias is affixed to his present occupation and name so one can trust that he will be consistent and that what he says regarding the law is likely true.

                      David is retired and his field has nothing to do with any of the discussions we are presently involved with. One can’t translate his degree to our discussions. Additionally with a guaranteed income and tenured job of the past he may be less likely to understand how society functions.

                      The person who maintains my pool seems to have more knowledge of what is happening in the world than many even though his education is limited. He is on the right but doesn’t care to be involved. He has to work and make money to support those that might riot in the streets and may be on some type of wellfare at the same time. I asked him, “are you not concerned that control over Congress might change and they will raise your costs?” His answer was better than the vast majority of Democrats and apparently better than many Democratic economic advisors. “No” he said. “When they raise my costs I raise my prices so it is the consumer that pays.”

                      The relatively uneducated maintainer of my pool has more understanding of economics than many of the educated people on this blog. He is worth listening to. Fancy degrees that offer no reasonalbe content are not.

                    2. Additional costs are apportioned between vendor and consumer according to the elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand in that particular market. He cannot pass it all on to the consumer unless the supply for his services is perfectly inelastic.

        4. Mr Benson, 15 years ago you exposed yourself to me. As such I demand that your employer fire you or even better you do the honorable thing and quit. Unless you are a hypocrite and don’t really mean what you said

        5. Nonsense. This is a job interview.

          The treatment of Kavanaugh has been such that any corporate HR director’s head would long since have exploded.

        6. hes an article III judge already has lifetime tenure. they all do.. been through this before many times.

      2. Lose these deeper ideas and the western way of life is lost.


        There is very little difference between the mindset of a Muslim who desires martyrdom and what many on the Left will do to win.

    2. Earth to progressive mental case: it’s 100% the responsibility of the accuser to make their case. This is not (yet) the fascist 3rd world progressive feces hole you pine for, thank God.

    3. If you have evidence that Kavanaugh did not deny under oath the accused crimes, post links.

      Conversely, Ford’s actual personal claims are unknown to you and everyone not her lawyer. Per Ford’s attorney, the therapist does not even know how many people Ford reported were present in the room, so the therapist is an idiot, forgot, and/or never knew, and/or Ford lied.

      10-1 odds the liar Ford is a no-show. As long as Ford never states publicly or under oath, EVERY SINGLE SYLLABLE ABOUT HER IS PURE UNADULTERATED USELESS HORSE MANURE HEAR SAY, INCLUDING YOUR OWN TEXT.

        1. Anonymous, what is your motive for being on this blog? What is your motive for defending Ford? What is your motive for acting stupid?

      1. Joseph Jones – it was reported last night night that the SJC would not be given copies of her therapist’s notes.

Comments are closed.

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