Christine Ford's Polygraph Statement Indicates Coordination With Feinstein and Contradicts Her Hearing Statement

** TO GO WITH COLOMBIA MENTIROSOS EN TV ** A polygraph examiner applies electrodes on the fingers of a student at the Latin American Polygraph Institute in Bogota, Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The polygraph is all the rage in deception-weary Colombia, with more than 300 businesses using the instrument to screen employees. The prime time TV show "Nothing But the Truth" rewards contestants for taking a lie detector exam and revealing intimate details of their lives.(AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)

** TO GO WITH COLOMBIA MENTIROSOS EN TV ** A polygraph examiner applies electrodes on the fingers of a student at the Latin American Polygraph Institute in Bogota, Tuesday, June 12, 2007. The polygraph is all the rage in deception-weary Colombia, with more than 300 businesses using the instrument to screen employees. The prime time TV show “Nothing But the Truth” rewards contestants for taking a lie detector exam and revealing intimate details of their lives.(AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)

 

The attorneys for Christine Ford, the California woman who claims to have been groped by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on an unknown date at an unknown place, released the questions used in the polygraph she “passed.” As with so much surrounding Ford’s story, there are more questions raised than answered.

https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1045025134040551424

This hints that far from this being a hands-off relationship, that Ford was closely coordinating with Feinstein’s office to prep this attack on Kavanaugh. What is also notable is that while Ford professed a pathological fear of flying as a reason to delay her availability to testify, in early August she flew to Maryland to take a polygraph…presumably because there are no polygraph examiners available in California.

The examiner asked only two questions.

https://twitter.com/WiredSources/status/1045156592520482816

This process has Jonathan Turley concerned as to the usefulness of the exercise:

The most notable aspect of the story however is the only two “relevant” questions asked by Hanafin “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

Those questions would be effectively useless in an actual case.  Good polygraphers ask specific, clear, insular questions.  They do not use overarching language.  He did not ask specific questions on whether she was assaulted by Kavanaugh — a rather curious omission.

It is not natural way to frame such an examination and the question is whether the examination was framed or limited by Ford’s counsel. The guidelines discourage such crafting or the dropping of details:

When the questions are agreed upon, and they exclude details or the wording is a bit unusual, be sure the missing details and a discussion of the development of the relevant questions are in the report. Details that were agreed upon, but were deleted from the question, must be in the report. Persons who were not present may criticize the relevant question wording because the report does not adequately describe the question development.

I have never met a polygrapher who would structure questions like these for use in a test.  If this is truly the content of the examination, I would view it as largely useless in an actual case.

And then there is this. The polygraph question is at odds with the letter Ford sent to Feinstein:

This increases the number stories Ford has told about the size of the party to five.

And Ford’s team has refused to provide any back-up documentation.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========