Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford last week, wrote in a memo released late Sunday that there were inconsistencies in Ford's testimony and that-- given the information at hand-- she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

She identified Ford's case as an example of “he said, she said,” and said her case is “even weaker than that.”

Ford, a California psychology professor, claims Kavanaugh assaulted her while at a house party in the 1980s when they were both teenagers. She said he pinned her to a bed, attempted to forcibly remove her clothes and prevented her from screaming.

Ford said she was "100 precent" certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker.
Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.

Mitchell, who worked as a sex-crimes prosecutor for nearly 25 years in Arizona, pointed out what she identified as timing inconsistencies. She wrote that Ford appeared to jump around on the timing of the alleged sexual assault, ranging from the “mid 1980s” to “early 1980s,” and then the “summer of 1982.”

“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,” she wrote.

Mitchell also pointed out that Ford has a history of struggling to name Kavanaugh as her attacker. Mitchell noted that his name was not in notes from her 2012 marriage therapy or her individual therapy in 2013.

Ford also appears unable to remember key elements about the incident, Mitchell wrote. She does not recall how she got to the party or back home and she does not remember the house where the alleged assault took place.

She said Ford’s account has not been corroborated by anyone who she identified as attending the party, including a “lifelong friend.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitchell-says-she-would-not-bring-criminal-charges-against-kavanaugh-in-memo

The republican chosen prosecutor does not believe the person accusing a republican ... well, wonders never cease.

As a victim myself, Im not sure what expertise the sex crimes prosecutor actually had , the lady is talking out the side of her mouth. I could not tell you the YEAR or date I was assaulted either, I wasnt writing these things down on a calendar. i would have to narrow it down from what I do remember and still might only get the right decade.

It would help me narrow it down to know the date of his incarceration, just like Ford wanted investigation to pinpoint when his friend worked at a particular location so SHE could pin the time down.

I also dont know if not mentioning him by name at a counselor session is 'history of struggling' either.

but no matter, what will be will be. As a victim myself, I found her very credible. We dont remember all the details. We do remember the things that impact us most, like being laughed at, or things that are said, or the layout of where it happened.


As to how she got to the party or back home, that may be nothing else but a matter of having a normal pattern of attending get togethers and not being able to remember the specifics of the travel from one to the next.

she DESCRIBED Kavanaugh well enough, even if she chose not to mention his name. I doubt she waited six years and just randomly picked someone who fit her description.

Body language expert:

WMAR-2 News spoke to body language experts who gave some insight on how what you don't say can make a difference in whether or not people believe your story.

"Her words and the body language around them were raw. Her voice was quivering it was not calculated," body language expert, Rebecca Klein Scott, told WMAR-2 News.

"Seeing his body language, his mannerisms, his anger that something occurred in that bedroom and the full truth has not come out," body language expert, Keith Scott said.

WMAR-2 News had them look at the opening statements of Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.

"She came across as a real person," said Scott.

The Scotts said Kavanaugh’s testimony was more controlled and aggressive.

"When you feel the need to over-prove and overshare as if you have to pull people into your story and make them believe what you’re saying and then let me give you that one more detail and then maybe you'll believe me; it felt very defensive."

Scott said Kavanaugh's physical cues suggested there's more to the story.

"The constant taking the tongue and putting it in the cheek, the constant soothing. What we have found is that individuals that are continually doing that, any kind of soothing is that they’re very unsure of themselves."

Many have commented on social media about Kavanaugh's open emotion; seen differently by our experts.

"It may have been real crying because who would want to be in a situation where your daughters, your wife, everybody is looking at you this way. I'm not going to say with 100 percent surety that he did this or didn’t do it because we don’t know but every sign point in the direction to question what he says," Scott said.

https://www.wmar2news.com/news/region/baltimore-city/body-language-experts-weigh-in-on-ford-kavanaugh-testimony

Sexual trauma experts:

Resick is a leader in the field of sexual trauma. Her research focuses on the lasting effects of traumatic events, particularly on women. She has worked with rape victims for more than 40 years, and since the 1980s, she has been developing and testing cognitive process therapy as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Were there details that stuck out to you?

The discussion about Ford and her husband going to therapy because she wanted two front doors was a unique moment. It actually is corroborating evidence about the impact of the assault on her life. I mean, who else needs two front doors?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Shors is a neuroscientist who studies memory and its role in overcoming trauma, including sexual violence. She has devised neuroscience-based treatments for PTSD. Her work also examines how stressful events in the past affect behavior and mental health in the future, especially in women.


Did anything strike you about the things Ford remembers from the night of the alleged assault?

It is interesting to me that Ford says she remembers the context and the layout of the bedroom, the bathroom where she hid and the stairwell to the room. We just published a study showing that women with sexual violence history experience vivid memories of the spatial and temporal context of their most stressful life event.

-------------------------------------------------------

Swartout is an expert on the social attitudes and behaviors that contribute to sexual violence, especially against women. Among other things, he studies how alcohol, drugs, peers and social attitudes can fuel aggressive behavior. One of his specialties is understanding how young men — those a year or two older than Kavanaugh was at the time of the alleged assault — negotiate the transition to college.

How do you assess the credibility of the claims made by these two witnesses?

First of all, let me caution that it is impossible for me to determine how credible the accusations are against Kavanaugh. All I can do is speak to the match between the details that were presented during the hearing and what we know about sexual violence perpetrators from the research literature.

Having stated that, there were several moments from Kavanaugh’s testimony that especially caught my attention.

He demonstrated a great deal of hostility during the hearing, especially toward some of the female senators on the committee. He had a contentious exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at the outset, where he cut her off mid-sentence numerous times. There was also the exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), which he later apologized for, where he seemingly tried to flip the power differential by turning the question back on her.

The results of hundreds of studies to this point suggest that levels of hostility toward women, which includes a drive to exert power over women, are positively related with levels of sexual violence.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ford-testimony-credibility-memory-20180928-story.html

I expect no one to read through the lengthier posts. But I am making the point that if there is an opinion on this earth, it is not hard to find some 'expert' to agree with it. In the end, they become only opinions as well, if they are not in the position to make or impact the decisions.

Not remembering where it happened takes away the FBI' s ability to question the host. Not remembering how she got home makes it where the FBI can't question someone who should have noticed her upset. Her friends aren't backing her up. Only people who don't want k confirmed are getting on-board with this crap.

further investigation may uncover where it happened, by filling in the gaps of what IS known and asking around. She had the layout of the house and what area it as in. Others who had been to that house may be able to use those details to pin it down.

It will need further investigation to fill some of the gaps she may have difficulty remembering naturally.

probably why she requested that there be further investigation.

Someone might remember a party happening at a house in that area over 3 decades ago? That isn't evidence.

we will see.

major part of the issue with rape or assault is that what people will accept as being 'evidence' is very slim, unless there is bruising or semen, many will say there is no 'evidence'.

but as mentioned before, circumstantial evidence such as different sources confirming details or timelines, can often be considered enough 'evidence' to at least find reason to suspect.

She is regarded as one of the top sex crimes prosecutors in the country! Shes won numerous legal awards and is regarded as an expert in sex crimes, its why she was chosen. She's never been one to play politics.


I also am a victim and I remember every last detail if it happened yesterday.


Just because she was selected by the Republican chairman doesn't mean anything. I am a Republican and I didn't believe Roy Moore.

This is nothing more then a political hit job.

I also speak as someone who has conducted interviews and interrogations for over 20 years now and hold many certifications have even taught seminars on it. She showed just about every sign of deception there is during her interview.


I maybe opinionated and wrong on other posts but one thing I am good at is what I do for a living, it's why companies are constantly trying to recruit me and am in negotiations for job that would be a major step up for my career.

My point was there is no monopoly on 'expertise'. There are any number of 'experts' related to the substance of this issue. Sex trauma Experts, prosecutors, attorneys, body language experts, who are all weighing in, and not coming to any one sided consensus one way or the other.

I also would not imagine a prosecutor taking the case, being that women have such a hard time proving these allegations, especially when actual consummation did not take place

which is probably why she is not asking for the police to charge him with a crime. The issue is the potential CHARACTER of a SCOTUS NOMINEE, because it is possible to be of poor character even if one has not crossed the line of being guilty of a crime.

IF a woman has gone through a trauma, there is absolutely NO Reason she deserves any less than to be heard. IF there is something to it, let it come to light. If nothing comes to light, let things move on. But her being heard was the right and NECESSARY thing to have happen, ESPECIALLY, in my opinion, if there seems to be no monetary motivation or gain for HER in doing so.

Also, now that shes lied under oath, when she gets exposed do you think those same Democrats who set her up are going to be there for her? Nope, not only will they throw her under the bus but will also back over her with it.

Someone who was traumatised should remember where she was and who host the party. She should remember who took her home because most would have been trying to leave immediately. Her not remember these things is a huge red flag. The investigators don't believe her for good reasons.

That goes for the Dems ad well. MS ..and your Dem pie charts..and Graphs..and articles

She doesn't want to have him charged with a crime because she can't. She can't even tell where or when it happened so he can defend himself. She just wants to ruin his reputation and delay this vote for the Democrats.

It is unlikely she 'just' wants to ruin a nomination since her first mention of this incident happened SIX YEARS prior to that nomination.

it is unlikely anyone will prove she is 'lying' since she made pretty clear answers regarding what happened during the incident and the layout of the room. And no one was there to say it didnt happen in that room or that that house does not exist.

on the contrary, K made several ABSOLUTE statements regarding his drinking that could be refuted as lies in the investigation, if others remember him being falling down drunk or not remembering things, and pretty much crumble his nomination.


there is no red flag to her testimony. As I have stated several times, I cannot remember the details of my assault that werent TRAUMATIC, like the address or how I ended up there. I do however remember what the room looked like, and I remember the details like what he said and what he did. Trauma 'experts' also have noted above how the memory can work with assaults.


and no GREEN, Charts reflect what they reflect, they are a tool. Unlike people WITH OPINIONS.

There is nothing but red flags in her claim. She didn't say anything to her shrink that ties this claim to k. If it wasn't about delaying the vote, she wouldn't have waited 36 years to be TRAUMATIZED.

I didn't wait 36 years. I waited a no more then two years and me coming forward led to two other victims being found.