Career sex-crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, has issued her final report (memorandum) on her conclusions from the Senate Judiciary hearing last Thursday.
Here is what she has specifically detailed to justify her position that Dr. Ford’s allegation does not rise to the level where “a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.”
1. “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
Ford originally said that the alleged incident occurred in the “mid-1980s,” but this recollection was later amended to the “early 80s.” More recently it was narrowed down to the “summer of 1982” in the September 16 Washington Post article.
The Post article also stated that notes from a 2013 individual therapy session had her saying she was in her “late teens” at the time of the alleged assault.
2. “Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
In 2012, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was often reported as a possible Supreme Court nominee if Mitt Romney were to be elected president. And though Dr. Ford’s husband says she mentioned Kavanaugh’s name during the 2012 marriage therapy sessions, there is no name provided in those notes.
Nor is there any name mentioned in the 2013 individual therapy session notes.
3. “When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
Ms. Mitchell states that Dr. Ford testified that before they were married, she told her husband that she had experienced a “sexual assault.” But this is not what she told, and was reported by, the Washington Post which was she had been a victim of “physical abuse.”
4. “Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account”
Ms. Mitchell finds Dr. Ford’s ability to recall some aspects of the evening in question with astonishing detail but others with no memory at all to be highly suspect.
Given that she told the Post that the partly likely occurred near the Columbia Country Club, which would make some sense if she still had on a bathing suit from swimming at this club that afternoon. But it raises the question as to how she could recall the specific layout of the living room area but had no memory of being driven home — given that the club was about 20 minutes from her house.
That she states she ran down the stairs and left the house immediately after leaving the bathroom upstairs just doesn’t appear credible given the likely distance to her home. She would have had to call someone from the party but makes no mention of that. And no one has come forward, including her family, to say that they drove her home.
5. “Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended – including her lifelong friend.”
All the people Dr. Ford has mentioned who she says were at the party have issued statements under felony penalty that they unequivocally deny her account of such a party. The only woman mentioned, her lifelong friend Leland Keyser issued two statements through her attorney. The first states, “‘[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.'”
A subsequent statement reads: “‘the simply and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.'”
6. “Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.”
Ms. Mitchell says the discrepancies and inconsistencies about Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged incident are too numerous to ignore. For example, her statement to the polygrapher and in the July 6 note to the Post, she said Patrick “PJ” Smyth was a bystander to the alleged attack but she corrected this in the hearing as being untrue.
And perhaps more troubling is that she originally said, in her letter to Senator Feinstein, “‘me and 4 others'” were at the party and did not even mention Leland Keyser as being in attendance.
No wonder Ms. Keyser has no recollection of the party.
7. “Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.”
Dr. Ford gave therapy notes to the Washington Post though she can’t recall whether they were a “full or partial set.” Nor can she remember whether she showed the reporter the actual records or just her summary.
Though she provided such information to the Post, she has refused to provide the same notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It was only just a few weeks ago but Dr. Ford cannot recall whether her polygraph session was either audio- or video-recorded. Nor can she even remember if the polygraph session took place the day of her grandmother’s funeral or the day after.
8. “Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.”
The hearing was delayed due to the Committee being “informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying.” But this three day postponement was entirely fabricated. Under oath she said she flies quite frequently. At least once a year from California to the Maryland, Delaware area to vacation. She has also traveled to French Polynesia and other countries by air.
Her attorneys also did not want the investigators to come to California to interview her in a private setting without the time constraints of the public Judiciary hearing.
Mitchell concluded her memorandum: “It is significant that she used the word ‘contributed’ when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word ‘contributed’ rather than ’caused’ suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, said that she could think of ‘nothing as striking as’ the alleged assault.”
Mitchell’s formal statement can be read here.
