Christine Blasey Ford shows signs of deception, deflection in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings according to Private Investigator

An impartial, unbiased, and independent Verintegra investigator examined a video available on YouTube of Christine Blasey Ford testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Christine Blasey Ford alleges she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh while the were in high school. Ford recants the story during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Our investigator concluded that at several points during the hearing, Christine Blasey Ford showed signs of deception and evasiveness. These indicators, explanations, along with the referenced video is outlined below.

Rachel Mitchell is the prosecutor hired to question Kavanaugh’s accuser during the Senate hearing. The video begins with Rachel Mitchell asking Christine Blasey Ford to confirm that August 7th was the date she took the polygraph in which “No deception was detected.” related to her claims regarding Kavanaugh.

To which Christine Blasey Ford replies:

I believe so is the day I was flying from BWI to Manchester New Hampshire

and then she looks away from Mitchell, in the direction of her counsel.

Dissecting this reply, we notice that the verbiage used to answer the question does not flow nor communicate what she is trying to say. This, along with the look away at the end of the delivery, suggests nervousness. However these alone are not signs of deception. Dissecting further, we note that she did two things when she answered this statement. Ford suggested she was uncertain of the date with “I believe so” and then suggested she was certain of the date by stating something she did on that date “flying from BWI to Manchester”. Ford also may not realize it, but what she did by not directly answering the question, is she deflected the question. Ford could have simply answered “I believe so”, but she continued on as if she was very insecure of her response, stating a fact as if someone had challenged her “I believe so” response. The providing of more information or detail than is being asked is notable.

Rachel Mitchell then asks Christine Blasey Ford why she decided to take the polygraph.

To which Christine Blasey Ford replies:

Um..I didn’t see any reason not to do it.

Rachel Mitchell then asks Christine Blasey Ford if she was advised to take the polygraph.

Then Michael Bromwich, the attorney who quit his job to represent Ford interjects:

Again, you’re seeming to call for communciations between counsel and client. I don’t think you mean to do that. If you do, she shouldn’t have to answer that.

To which Senator Grassley interjects:

Counsel..uh..could you let her answer the extent to which she doesn’t violate the relationship between you and Dr. Ford.

The sudden interjection by Bromwich could have several obvious or underlying reasons. After all, the polygraph was intended to improve Ford’s credibility. Bromwich knows that the integrity of the polygraph and how it was conducted could raise several red flags. Bromwich’s interjection suggests an insecurity as to how the polygraph was organized and conducted. This could be cause for such a defensive approach to questions concerning the polygraph. Senator Grassley also felt the need to interject, likely observing the suspicious and unfounded desire of Bromwich to not have his client answer such a simple question concerning the polygraph.

At this time the camera is still focused on Grassley but we could safely assume Bromwich and Ford are discussing how and in what form they will reply.

Finally, Christine Blasey Ford replies:

Based on the advice of the counsel, I was happy to undergo the polygraph test, although I found it extremely stressful, much longer than I anticipated, I told my whole life story, I felt like I endured it. It was fine.

Dissecting this statement by Ford, you notice that she begins by stating she is answering based on the advice of the counsel she consulted with prior to answering the question. However, it isn’t just any counsel, it is her counsel. Despite this, Ford refers to her counsel as “the counsel”. Ford is detaching herself from her counsel with this statement, possibly due to discomfort with or a lack of confidence of the advice of her counsel. Then Ford makes what could be interpreted as contradictory statements by saying she “was happy to undergo the polygraph test” but goes on to say it was “extremely stressful and much longer than I anticipated”. Does she truly mean both of these things? Likely not. It is this type of contradictory line of statements and extra information which was never asked of Ford that suggests deception.

Skipping ahead..

Rachel Mitchell then asks Christine Blasey Ford why a hotel next to Baltimore Washington Airport was chosen for the polygraph.

To which Christine Blasey Ford replies:

I had left my grandmother’s funeral at Fort Lincoln Cemetery and was on tight schedule to get a plane to Manchester New Hampshire so he was willing to come to me, which was appreciated.

It is important to note that, again, Ford is giving extra information no one is asking for. No one asked if she had a funeral that day. No one asked who’s funeral it was. No one asked where it was. No one asked if she was on a tight schedule. No one asked if she had a flight to Manchester. No one asked if she appreciated the administrator coming to her. She was asked why a hotel next to Baltimore Washington Airport was chosen for the polygraph and she again failed to directly answer the question. To communicate what she was trying to say more effectively she simply had to state, “It was most convenient for me that way.” Then, if Mitchell felt so inclined, she would ask Ford follow up questions such as why it was more convenient for her.

Rachel Mitchell then clarifies by confirming with Ford that the polygraph administrator administered a polygraph to her on the day Ford attended her grandmother’s funeral. Michell likely asked this because it could be interpreted as unprofessional on behalf of the polygraph administrator, if he was aware she could possibly be in a heightened emotional state on this date, yet decided to proceed with the administration of the polygraph anyway.

To which Christine Blasey Ford replies:

Correct. It might have been the next day. I spent the night in the hotel. I don’t remember the exact day.

Dissecting this statement by Ford, if you watch the video itself, it is strange to see the surety in her voice as she said “Correct” followed by a significant change to “it might have been the next day” and then the additional information that no one asked that suggests overcompensation for deception “I spent the night at the hotel” and finally a complete 180 from how she began her statement “I don’t remember the exact day.”

In under three minutes of the video, our Investigator believes you could witness one of the worst liars in history give several “tells” to decipher or choose to ignore.

For a deeper understanding of body language analysis we recommend YouTube channel “Body Language Ghost”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *