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 ?
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 !