BLASELY-FORD—INCREDIBLE WITNESS—CONVIENIENT MEMORY

Dr. Beasley-Ford’s allegations are so well insulated from corroboration that one must suspect the veracity of her account. First Dr. Ford is a academic who teaches psychology and as such she would be well versed in just how an alleged rape victim may act and react to questioning.  Her deposition has been described as  very well scripted and she performed her role excellently. Those in her audience believed her.  But there are elements of her account that simply do not add up.

In answer to a question by the Senate-appointed female interrogator she revealed in public testimony a grave inconsistency.  She testified that six weeks after the alleged “attempted rape” while accompaning  her mother to a local grocery chain, she encountered her alleged attacker—Mark Judge,  who was employed at that place.  She stated that  she recognized Judge and approached him to speak with him—“because they had been in a friendly relationship in the past” (?))but according to her, he became “white as a sheet” turned away and ignored her.

What is troubling about this is the following: How is it that Ford was conveniently unable to remember where her alleged “attempted rape”  took place, when it occurred, and how she got there and who took her home?  But she was able to remember clearly and with a great detail how, when and where she encountered Mark Judge six week later.  Furthermore, would a person who was so “traumatized” by her alleged encounter with Kavanaugh and Judge only a month and a half earlier attempt to engage in “small talk” with her alleged vicious attacker?   It would be more likely that had she actually been attacked by Judge,  she would have avoided him rather than sought to engage him in conversation.   But not according to Ford’s testimony.

Secondly, it does seem suspicious that her memory is  a “convienient”one.  Her recall appears to have been specifically tailored for making accusations, but hazy enough so that details that could be confirmmed or analysed were “forgotten” and unavailable for rebuttal.  These essential facts were thus unavailable to the defendant and impossible  to be refuted.  For example, she can not remember where this traumatic experience occurred.  She can not identify the street or the house or the date, or the family, or even the number of attendees at the “party”.  These essential elements of any allegation.are not part of her memory  The fact that her memory fails her on these critical matters—permits her to avoid the problem of the accused ever being able to evaluate or refute her thirty-six yearl old allegations.   With all the critical essential details erased—except the frightening and emotional aspects of her alleged abuse (at the hands of evil “Brett”)—she was able to wring out of her audience the greatest amount of sympathy and provide the desired political advantage to her Democrat supporters—while rendering a repost of these charges mpossible to refute by her supposed attacker.

These are the questions that appear to bring suspicion of falsity to Dr. Ford’s story.   Her presentation was credible—she was a sympathetic witness.  But there are no facts to support her contention—of 36 years ago—and too many reasons to suspect that her account and selective memory was plotted as a means of slander and character assignation to further her ulterior motives and those of her allies and supporters.