Sunday, 7 October 2018

'Inadvertently' blaming Kavanaugh ?

I didn't listen to all Christine B Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on 27th September, if I had I'd have heard this and if I'd heard this, I'd have saved myself a lot of bother trying to work out exactly if CBF might just have named Brett Kavanaugh in her therapy sessions. She didn't !

See how Helen Mitchell comes into her own in her questions about these 'notes' I transcribed most of it staring with Ford's early contact with the Washington Post 

 Text to Washington Post dated 7/6 (which presumably means 6th July 201)

Have therapy records talking about it (it presumably meaning the alleged assault)

Did you already have your therapy records at that time 

I had looked at them online to see existed, yes

So this was something available to you via a computer like a patient portal

Actually no, it was in the office of a provider

She'd helped me go through ... 

Did you show a full or partial set of those marital therapy records to the Washington Post ?

I don't remember I remember summarising for her what they said, so I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record

Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel 

Just the counsel

Would it be fair to say that Brett kavanaugh's name is not listed in those notes ?

His name is not listed in those notes

Would it also be fair that the therapist's notes that we've been talking about, say that there were four boys in the room ?

 It describes the sexual assault and it says er erroneously by 4 boys, so the therapist got the content of it wrong

And you corrected that to this reporter at the Washington Post ?


Now, I've been doing my own head in this last week or so trying to work out as best I can with what little I've had, what exactly was it that CBF was trying to achieve by bringing her therapist's alleged notes into her assault claims. Did she believe they would have some corroborative value to her story despite the fact she hadn't actually named Justice K as her assailant, not during her and her husband's couples therapy that is ? Let's go back to statements she made after her initial contact/s with the press and Senator Feinstein and her personal appearance before the committee. 

Hats off to the Daily Mail for their efforts here - this is one of the most useful article's to date

  Now read this - her motivations for coming forward and her desire to hopefully remain anonymous ?

Now, here's where those questions by Mitchell come into there own, as she managed to get Ford to admit that she had researched her medical/therapy notes prior to contacting the press etc. Those notes if they exist, and we have to assume they do because her counsel must have seen them, corroborate her claims that she had therapy and her husband was there at the time maybe in 2012 or 2008 (read my last post), we can accept this on the balance of probability can't we ? What we cannot know is whether she's lying about the fact that she says she told others the identity of her attacker, even in its vaguest form - he's a judge - he might be on the Supreme Court one day etc ! 

Her lawyer's say she'll only release these notes in the course of an investigation and only if she's interviewed by the FBI, and we don't know why she wasn't. But, can we all agree that, really she should have turned over those notes, redacted if necessary ? Which brings me nicely into this most sensitive of questions : Is she lying or does she honestly believe that BK attacked her all those years ago ?

Of course we don't know what information the FBI had already acquired during their 'investigation' but failing to just interview her they've given her an excuse, poor as it is, not to play ball !

But hold on, isn't the whole reason she came forward in the first place one of civic duty ? Why let a pesky thing like not being interviewed AGAIN, after spending half a day doing that for the whole world to see already ? This lady's identification of a Supreme Court nominee, may well be the result of some false memory and that may in due course - partly absolve HER of any serious liability, her accomplishes should not, in my opinion be allowed to get off lightly !

I may have been a bit harsh calling Ford a liar. Common sense denotes that something traumatic must have happened to this woman at some point in her life. Just listen and watch her testimony, she clearly still has mental health problems. But I don't believe her woes have anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh. 

What's more, and this part of the incident has been bugging me since I read it - why did she feel the need to add her own interpretation of her attacker's motivation, NOT TO DELIBERATELY kill her ?

This brings out my own inner psychologist (crap degree no classification). Is she making the attack seem more or less serious - I thought he meant to rape but not kill me ? I'm not sure what she's doing here, and I'm not sure her therapist's notes will aid my understanding. 

But they might ! 


Saturday, 29 September 2018

In whose bedroom was Ford allegedly attacked ?

I've decided that the least stressful way to approach this case is to blog as certain questions come to me. The last few days I've been comparing and contrasting what CBF said at the Senate Judiciary Committee to what she said elsewhere, specifically in her original letter to Senator Feinstein.

The 'full unredacted letter' was published in various publications. I cannot access the Washing Post because it's pay-walled,  but thankfully, Newsweek magazine isn't ! 

The latest news on the story is that the FBI will, rightfully in my opinion, be investigating the claims, and that's no small juice. As NPR very helpfully - and more importantly - impartially explain, lying to a Senate Committee is one thing, lying to the Feds is quite another !

OK, so let's go to the contents of the letter as published in Newsweek. The way CBF describes the incident in her letter is different to what she said later, and contrary to what some may claim - these differences are, as far as I'm concerned quite important !  I've already covered the number of party-goers angle, so I'll not repeat that right now !

1) WHO allegedly pushed her into that bedroom ? 
July 30th Version 

The Polygraph Statement Version 7th August 2018


How does she go from K pushing her to she's not sure if it was him or his friend ? Now, it is of course, perfectly reasonable to not know who pushed you from behind, indeed - how would she know it was BK ? So why say this in her letter to Feinstein ?

Now - read what she says to the JSC on 27th September 

Why has she inserted the "I drank one beer" into this account ? What's happened to make her remember the fact she'd only drank one beer ? Would you remember this ? I don't think I would, but it sounds like a good way of saying, I wasn't drunk, like they were. I could speculate more, but I'll not. 

But, here's the corker for me. Here's something that jumped right at me - the bit about the music ! No, not the loud music that was playing downstairs - the music already playing in the room she's been pushed into ! 

2) Whose room did this alleged attack take place in ? This is someone's bedroom right ? That person must surely have been in the house at the same time ? CBF has to know exactly whose house this was. She remembers the names of just about everyone who was there, so she must know not only WHOSE house it was, but where this bloody house was !

I don't know about you but I'm suspicious of anyone whose story keeps changing, and the more I listen to and read about CBF the less credible I find her story. Not necessarily her by the way - her story ! There's a difference between the two ! 

To be continued


Friday, 28 September 2018

Christine Blasey Ford's Doors

Never mind Mark Judge someone tell Brett Kavanaugh's lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Christine B Ford, if for no other reason than I want to know if every Goddam house she's ever lived in needed renovation in the form of extra doors. And I'm deadly serious folks, listen up !

A few days ago someone had the presence of mind to publish CBF's Polygraph test along with a printed statement regarding an incident in which she claims Federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her. 

I immediately noticed some discrepancies between the handwritten notes and the typed version of events. They're not much in themselves but then one starts burrowing and well, all sorts of holes start appearing - pun intended - everywhere ! 

In her original letter to Sen Feinstein Ford dated July 30th 2008 she claimed there were just five people including her at the gathering at which the alleged attack took place

Her handwritten note dated 7th August 2018 says 4 boys and a couple of girls, I expect not including her !

 So what you might say, and I might agree if it weren't for where these documents led me next, to the Daily Mail for God's sake ! Yes REALLY ! 

You see, I've read her statements, I've heard her testimony (some of it) but what I haven't seen so far is any physical proof that what she's saying is accurate ! Notice I didn't use the word 'true' ? I'm getting a tad wiser in my old age (since yesterday). CBF may well have told her therapist and her husband that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant, but unless I see those notes, it's just her word, and that's not enough for me ! 

Ford's detractors say she only brought BK into her assault story, when she discovered he'd been nominated for the Supreme Court a few months ago, but Ford is adamant that she told her husband during a couple's counselling session in 2012. It had to be 2012 because that's when she had to explain why she wanted an extra/new/second door in her home !

 could not be understood ? Does this mean her husband was unaware of her issues regarding confinement, in 2012 ? The next bit (from yesterday) is even more bizarre !

She recalled that someday the boy who assaulted her 'could someday be on the US Supreme Court' ? Really - she was saying this in 2012 ? Sorry folks, but I don't believe this and I hope you don't either ! But hold on, for a moment, I'm not alone in my door fetish (I've been questioning her references to the need for extra doors for days), there is intelligent life in the media ! Please someone - give a round of applause to Dr Ford's local missive - the PA Post


Anyone else see Dr Ford's problem here ?  This extra door was fitted in 2008 by which time her husband should have got used to her special needs in the door department, so it's highly unlikely they'd be arguing about it four years later. 

Unless, they were short of cash that is ! But that's another story, I'm knackered . 

To be continued ! Oh but before I go, someone explain to me why Ford's lawyers are withholding her therapy notes ? Maybe the FBI will tell us !

And, what does she mean by this ? She's received 'medical treatment' 

Is she considering a civil claim ?

Oh, and you might want to look up these guys too !


Saturday, 28 July 2018

Blackmailing the Police

We now know that Dan Johnson's accounts of the discussions he' d had with SYP from the 8th July 2016 cannot be relied on. And I for one was getting a tad vexed that I no one was able to ascertain exactly HOW he came by whatever information he had about Cliff. And then I happened across the following, and it was App 12 of the Pollard Report all over again - well almost

Could this Judge be any more helpful to the cause of Justice ? Only if he'd wanted the actual name of Johnson's source maybe, but I guess we can forgive him for not pushing that too much, after all, the hack was entitled to 'protect' his 'source'

So now we can establish the details of the Police operation such as it was, in July 2014. Not much was happening you see, there had only been ONE allegation made against Sir Cliff, via MWT sometime in 2013, to the Met Police. Supt Fenwick, helpfully explains WHY the Savile cops passed this to SYP.

Note the words who was aware of the full facts of the investigation. They're important for anyone trying to work out exactly who knew what and when ! Stay with me folks.

He knew it had been passed from Operation Yewtree to South Yorkshire Police Force. .... He asked me why SYP was investigating and not Operation Yewtree. 

Let's stop there for a moment shall we ? This ONE accuser had, appeared in 'late 2013' via MWT, whose Savile expose had aired in October 2012. Now, we don't know exactly what happened between 'late 2013' and March 2014, but we can almost certainly assume that the Police were NOT taking the accusation very seriously. 

Now, the next bit is a bit more of an eye-opener, for more than reasons than the fact that Fenwick mentions MWT

Supt Fenwick is referring to Johnson's note of that meeting. WHY is MWT's name on it ? Remember, MWT supplied this one complainant to the Police, presumably in secrecy. How come he's being discussed or not discussed, at this meeting in July 2016 ? 

Strewth guys and gals, that thought has, just this minute, come to me. Indeed, there can be only ONE of two explanations for his name being on that note. Either MWT is his original 'source' or his original 'source' knew MWT's involvement. 

I like this Supt Fenwick, he seems like a good man to me, the more I read about him. I kinda like DCI Orchard from Yewtree too, for this 


Suddenly, Johnson is detaching himself from all references to Yewtree. Just one day after the Cliff raid. 

Carrie Goodwin's opening remarks in her statement are really useful too. Note that this refers to that first phone call between her and Johnson. She's clearly left with the impression that Johnson knows even more about the Cliff story than she does. She's being reeled in, wasn't she ?

 Remember, it was the FACT that the Police believed that the 'source' of his information was Yewtree, that led them to take him seriously. Either they give him what he wants, or he publishes what he knows. And they fell for it. 

All Johnson seems to have had, at this time was that this bloke had claimed to have been assaulted at some Billy Graham rally in the 80's. That appears to be all the Police had too, but that's another story for later. At this point, no specific year has been mentioned, just that it happened in the 80's and that the alleged victim was underage. 

There had only been ONE allegation, just one, and the Police were not about to go trawling for others. The fact that there had only been one at that point in July 2014 is in itself staggering, given what was being said, or hinted at online and in print for over a year at least.

Mark Williams Thomas continued to act as some kind of advisor to Cliff's one accuser. By May 2016 someone was getting pissed off at the length of time the investigation was taking.

Maybe the fact that a few more accuser's had managed to appear might shake them up hey !


Despite someone's best efforts, the claims came to nothing. Sir Cliff was NOT arrested and he chose to take action against the BBC and South Yorkshire Police for their part in his sorrows. He was especially saddened by the way the BBC had treated him, a bit like they'd treated Sir Jimmy Savile really wasn't it ? Of course, no one would have bothered with Sir Cliff, had someone not have bothered to destroy Savile. *To their credit, the BBC did hold out against Meirion Jones's efforts, until someone managed to persuade the Police via ITV that they, like Johnson knew something, they actually didn't. I think you know where I'm going with this. * I hope you do anyway. See Addendum below.

It's not all doom and gloom though folks. I did have to smile when I read this part of Cliff's Witness statement. 

Time consuming ? Tell me about it Cliff. But, if you ever need a hand, let me know. Some things are NOT about the money, are they ? The online trolls continue to troll, they really cannot help it can they, it's their nature. They just cannot get their heads around the fact that Sir Cliff took the action he did, once he was cleared, not for himself but for others who find themselves in the same position as he did, but without the means to defend themselves.

Well done Cliff. I wish you well ! 

Addendum 28/7/18 *

I need to clarify what I meant when I wrote this earlier today. When the BBC rejected Meirion Jones project, MWT took it to ITV. Neither the Police, the BBC or indeed ANY other media outlet, save an almost unknown magazine (The Oldie) showed any interest whatsoever in 'exposing Jimmy Savile' until ITV got involved. And, what exactly did ITV in October 2012 have, that the Police in 2007/9 didn't ? Well, not a lot as it happens. Here's a bit of reading which I hope will help you (and me) understand the point I am trying to make.