Rachel Mitchell memo to Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford case weaker than “he said, she said” case, “Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account”
“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
Rachel Mitchell Memo:
Memorandum
TO: All Republican Senators
FROM: Rachel Mitchell, Nominations Investigative Counsel
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
DATE: September 30, 2018
RE: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations
Please permit me this opportunity to present my independent assessment of Dr. Christine Blasey
Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Before I do this, I want to emphasize two
important points:
1. This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations,
based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience
as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. This memorandum does
not necessarily reflect the views of the Chairman, any committee member, or any other
senator. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was
not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this
memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are
mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a
political or partisan person.
2. A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution. The Chairman
made the following statement on September 25, 2018, after he hired me:
As I have said, I’m committed to providing a forum to both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh
on Thursday that is safe, comfortable and dignified. The majority members have followed
the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced
career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing. The goal is
to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving
senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns. I’m very appreciative that
Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role. Ms.
Mitchell has been recognized in the legal community for her experience and objectivity.
I’ve worked to give Dr. Ford an opportunity to share serious allegations with committee
members in any format she’d like after learning of the allegations. I promised Dr. Ford
that I would do everything in my power to avoid a repeat of the ‘circus’ atmosphere in the
hearing room that we saw the week of September 4. I’ve taken this additional step to have
questions asked by expert staff counsel to establish the most fair and respectful treatment
of the witnesses possible.
That is how I approached my job. There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made
during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal
world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s
allegations in that legal context.
1
In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult
to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the
event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For
the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this
case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is
sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school
summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not
explain.
• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the
“summer of 1982.”
• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session
in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the
Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not
turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain
how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular
year.
Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in
2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a
potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure
of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.
When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become
less specific.
• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were
married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim
of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.
Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help
corroborate her account.
• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
• She does not remember how she got to the party.
2
• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that
house was located with any specificity.
• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her
house.
o Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country
Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies,
and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere
that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and
subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she
did not look like she had been attacked.
o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward
to identify him or herself as the driver.
o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming
downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she
did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.
• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the
assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was
taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.
Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as
having attended—including her lifelong friend.
• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party—
Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham).
Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could
not remember his name. No others have come forward.
• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any
memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee,
Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[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.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through
counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to
corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.”
o Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl
at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had
suddenly disappeared.
Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
• According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark
Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after
the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to
anyone.
3
o In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down
the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
o She testified that Judge Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the
bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified
that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them
going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation
with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a
conversation took place.
• Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
o According to the Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four
boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
o She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were
four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
o In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the
party.
o In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and
herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come
forward.
o Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the
polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified
that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even
though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more
memorable than PJ Smyth’s.
Dr. 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 struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
o Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to
the Washington Post reporter.
She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the
therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post
article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by
Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not
recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the
actual records.
o She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the
Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.
Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d]
therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s
tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before
contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about
the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those
notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in
her therapist’s office.
• Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
4
• Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises
questions.
o She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the
person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than
her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged
attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to
the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because
she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew
how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.
• Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took
the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same
day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.
o It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
• She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
o The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that
her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that
she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-
Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French
Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
o Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford
testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to
California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever
communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in
California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.
• She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any
similar claim about her last two years of high school.
• 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.
The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s
account.
More here:
Citizen WElls 