The Curious Case Of Doctor Ford

Littlechild@emperorsnuclothes.com/ October 2, 2018/ Uncategorized

There’s a children’s rhyme that goes as follows:

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
Why that is, I can not tell.
But this I know, and know full well:
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

This rhyme, penned by an unknown author decades ago, bespeaks a basic truth: humans sometimes like (or dislike) one another, and sometimes believe (or disbelieve) one another for reasons that are difficult to identify, and even harder to put into words. However, over the course of the many years since this rhyme was composed, we have gotten quite a bit more sophisticated about the why’s and wherefores of our predilections and interpersonal judgements. Psychological science has discovered that nonverbal “cues” are a very important explanation of the “Doctor Fell Effect” I described above. So called “body language”, as well as the sound of someone’s voice, turn out to be major factors in this non verbal realm. Doctor Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday is a great example of the effect that non verbal cues can have on a plaintiff’s credibility.

Because I was in transit at the time the Judiciary hearings were going on, my first exposure to the proceedings was completely auditory via CBS radio, which covered all of the hearing live. Perhaps because I did not have visual images to distract me, I was forced to focus more directly on Ford’s voice. The more I listened, the more peculiar her voice sounded to me. In fact, it sounded like the voice of a teenage GIRL. It was NOT what I expected from a 50ish woman, especially a Doctor of Psychology…. hmmm… Curious.

As with all the observations I make (about anything, really), I immediately questioned the veracity of my impressions. Giving Ford the “benefit of the doubt”, I told myself that I must have been mistaken about my observations, or, at the very least, was exaggerating. Lo and behold, however, when I later investigated my observations online, I was quite surprised to see that MANY observers had the same impression: Ford’s voice was NOT what one would expect in a 50 year old woman and Doctor of Psychology. Of the many online posts dealing with Ford’s voice, there’s a particularly funny impersonation of that voice that was posted on YouTube. It was made by Star Wars actress Rachel Butera (the voice of Princes Leia), and her impression of Ford’s voice is SPOT ON. Dear readers, please take a moment to go to the following link to hear the imitation for yourself:

In addition to Star Wars actresses, speech analysts also had a field day. Apparently, the gravelly timbre that often followed some of the emotional parts of Ford’s testimony is referred to, technically, as a “vocal fry”. It is often produced by mucus on the vocal cords. It can also be feigned. A number of analysts opined that, in Blasey Ford’s case, it WAS feigned, simply because, IF the “fry” was real and was caused by mucus, Ford would have had to clear her throat often to try to relieve the problem, and she did NOT do so.

Perhaps the most cogent reason Ford sounded like a young girl was her proclivity to inflect the END of her sentences. This made them sound a bit like questions rather than statements. This type of inflection is commonly used by teenagers, especially young women, but is almost never heard from adults…. Curiouser.

Later that day, when I finally got to see Ford’s testimony visually (online) I was struck also by the strange body language. Once again, my impressions were noted by many people online, posting in a number of different formats. The frequent use of a coquettish “pretty girl” pose was especially bizarre in an older woman, as was her involuntary opening and closing her mouth (without speech) that some people have questioned might be a sign of mental illness. And there’s another thing: when honest people try to recall visual memories there is an involuntary motion of the eyes upward. Ford did very little of this during her descriptions of the place and setting of the attack…. hmm…. curiouser and curiouser.

Ford’s body language was commented on online by many people, but there’s a particularly telling and even entertaining analysis that you can view online. It was posted by a commentator by the name of Mandy O’Brien under the name of “Dr. Bombast” On her website, she says that her personal mission is to expose online dishonesty, and, to that end she has profiled people such as Vladimir Putin, Kieth Ellison, Barack Obama, and others. It should be pointed out, however, that O’Brien is actually NOT a Doctor, nor is she a credentialed analyst. As such her analysis should be taken with a “grain of salt”. This does NOT mean, however, that her analysis is wrong. After going through her YouTube post several times, I found myself agreeing with most of her observations and conclusions. And, by the way, I DO HAVE a Bachelor’s Degree in psychology as well as an exposure to psychiatry in medical school. The link is as follows:

Now, on top of the non verbal analyses discussed above, there are also ample verbal reasons to distrust Ford’s testimony. These have been delineated in a report by independent sex crimes PROSECUTOR Rachel Mitchell. The full text of her report can be seen at:

www.axios.com

Once at the website, look up the report by going to the October 1 page. It offers two formats: either document or text.

In the report, Prosecutor Mitchell, delineates the inconsistencies and contradictions as well as the lack of specifics that are evident in Ford’s testimony. (The interested reader can follow Mitchell’s reasoning, step by step, in her report, as listed above). Of most consequence here, however, are Mitchell’s conclusions:

Prosecutor Mitchell states: “A ‘he said/she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.” And, further, she stated that Blasey Ford “appears to have been manipulated by Congressional Democrats and by her attorneys”. And, in conclusion, “I do not think a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee. Nor do I believe that the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-evidence standard.”

So, Ford’s testimony is not found to be credible by an independent prosecutor, but Ford provided that questionable, and sometimes contradictory testimony UNDER OATH for all the country to see!… And Feinstein, Schumer, Booker and other “puppeteers” found her testimony “convincing”!… Curiouser and curiouser.

Add all of this to the many weird features of the case: the strange grammar and language in the original letter, the duplicitous way her accusations became available to the public (despite a claimed request to keep the matter “confidential”, and despite the fact that she took a polygraph test before her accusations became public and which would have been completely unnecessary had she really been intent of keeping mum), inconsistencies in many of her statements (the famous “second door for claustrophobia”, has been shown from old photographs to have been in place YEARS before the therapist session that supposedly discussed whether or not to instal the door, which she dated as 2012), the scrubbing of her social media accounts, the very recent alteration of the content of her faculty page, her history of liberal activism, the numerous connections between her attorneys and high profile “progressive” activists, and many other odd and disturbing aspects of her case, and one can see that there is AMPLE reason to doubt the veracity of her claims.

By the way, if the reader questions whether or not it’s “fair” to place Ford and her testimony under such severe scrutiny, I would ask them to remember that Ford CHOSE to appear before the Judiciary Committee knowing full well that she would be scrutinized. Remember also that the reputation and professional life of another, possibly innocent, person hangs in the balance.

But, despite all of the curious things listed above, there is at least one thing that is NOT curious regarding Ford’s motives. As of last night, Blasey Ford’s Go Fund Me account, which she mentioned SEVERAL times during her testimony, was up over $700,000 (the majority of this sum coming from just two donors!). Since Ford’s attorneys say they don’t want to be paid for their services, all of this money is, presumably, to help Ford pay… FOR HER AIR FARE…. Curious, indeed!