An ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford has come forward with a written statement, obtained by Fox News, in which he claims that she prepared someone to pass a polygraph, thereby contradicting Ford’s sworn testimony before the Senate.
He also claims that during their six-year relationship, she never showed any signs of being claustrophobic or afraid of flying, and never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or any sexual assault.
BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”. pic.twitter.com/jVeW0qaJD0
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 3, 2018
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley responded to this by sending a letter to Ford’s attorneys demanding that she turn over therapy notes and material from her polygraph test.
“Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination,” he wrote.
NEW: SenGrassley sends letter to Ford legal team asking for therapy notes (WaPo says some provided to them), all recordings of polygraph, all communications Ford had w/ WaPo. #Kavanaugh pic.twitter.com/N9u4FkDBiS
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 3, 2018
Since Ford and her former partner did not end their relationship cordially, it is prudent to urge caution in evaluation of his claims. It would not be the first time in history that an angry ex tried to paint an overly unflattering picture of someone.
However, multiple questions have been raised about her testimony that add up to credible criticism. Initially, most people found Ford’s emotional testimony to be highly convincing and credible, but on closer inspection some noticed signs of disingenuousness.
For instance, while reading her statement, she used a croaking voice that mimics emotion, but which does not require the buildup of mucus or other physiological changes to stress or emotion. She was able to switch swiftly and effortlessly between a soft girl’s voice and croaking, indicating that it was a form of voice manipulation rather than an involuntary emotional response.
By contrast, Kavanaugh’s feelings were unquestionably genuine. That Ford’s emotions were not represented honestly by her performance does not mean that she was lying, but it does indicate signs of coaching for maximal impact.
Christine Ford
The culprit seems to be Ford’s legal team. During her testimony, they interrupted her repeatedly to advise her not to answer. Everything we have seen from Ford in person has been cooperative, whereas her actions through her lawyers have been passive-aggressive: scrubbing all social media about her past, taking a polygraph, refusing to release therapy notes or polygraph data, refusing to testify in California, and refusing to fly to Washington.
Given such uncooperative, manipulative behavior it does not seem a stretch that the lawyers have coached her to try to be as emotional as possible, to tone down her alcohol consumption, to deny knowledge about polygraphs, or to emphasize her certainty about the identity of her attacker.
It is impossible to disentangle how much of this behavior she approved, but there is a sufficient pattern of manipulation to raise serious questions about the credibility of Ford’s testimony. How much of it is the truth as she remembers it and how much of it is make-up to make her memories more convincing? Sadly, we cannot give a definite answer to this question.
