Photoshop: Michael Avenatti In His Law Office

The False "Recovered Memory" of Dr Christine Blasey Ford

Christine Blasey Ford is tentatively set to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee this coming Thursday, regarding her accusations against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  However, many are now predicting that she will not testify.  I agree.

Ford's dubious and ambiguous accusations are the result of "recovered memory" at the hands of a psychologist.  Recovered memory was used a couple of decades back to falsely convict fathers and child care personnel of sexual assaults and rapes of their accusers.  It has since been learned that "recovered memory" is largely a farce.  The psychology patient's "recovered memories" are often the product of suggestion and imagination, not actual events.  Here is what the British Psychological Society says about it:

In 1995 the recovered memory debate was near its most vociferous height. Hundreds of people were recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), sometimes in therapies where it was believed that repressed or dissociated memories had to be recovered in order for the person to ‘heal’. Many of the people who recovered these memories confronted the person whom they remembered abusing them, and some cases ended up in the criminal courts with successful prosecutions. However, there were those who questioned whether all such memories should be accepted as accurate reflections of real events (e.g. Loftus, 1993). It was argued that some, perhaps even most, of such recovered memories might in fact be false memories produced, at least in part, by the therapists themselves. In response to such concerns, bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association issued guidance to their members regarding the potential dangers of unintentionally implanting false memories in patients.

 So we have another great reason to disbelieve Ford: Her "memory" is highly dubious at best.

Sexual Accusations Against Kavanaugh Debunked

Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for justice of the Supreme Court, is under an energetic attack by the Democratic Party.  The Dems have relied on their go-to strategy, which is to accuse the Republican target of sexual aggression against women, and the more embarrassing the accusation, the better.

There have been two accusations against Kavanaugh that have served to delay a vote on his confirmation to the court.  These accusations have been thoroughly vetted and analyzed on Twitter, and both are weak and dubious.  Here's why:

I.  Christine Blasey Ford, a leftwing activist and professor of psychology, claimed that Kavanaugh accosted her at a party in 1982, when he was 17 and she was 15.  She said he pushed her onto a bed, groped her, and tried to remove her clothing.  Ford could not provide any authenticating details to her tale, like the month, the location, how she got to the party and how she got home after it was over.  There is a good reason why a liar would omit any such details:  they could be used against her, to refute her story.  Indeed, Kavanaugh demonstrated this by coming up with his 1982 social calendars, none of which document any party as described by Ford.

Ford's story has fallen apart this week, as four people that she listed as witnesses, denied that such a party happened, that they saw Kavanaugh there, or that they subsequently heard about the alleged attack through the grapevine.  Ford claims that she told no one about the attack, not her parents, not the police, not school officials, not any of her friends.  She only "remembered" the incident after going to a psychiatrist in 2012 where she learned that she had repressed the traumatic event.  Kavanaugh's name was not mentioned nor recorded in the psychiatrist's notes.

Ford has refused to testify under oath that this attack actually occurred, and her attorneys have tried to impose absurd conditions on any such testimony.  This appears to be because she is afraid of a perjury charge, a consciousness of her own falsity in the charges.  She has tentatively agreed to testify this coming Thursday, but only if the conditions of her testimony are negotiated in her favor.  My take:  she will not testify and will withdraw at the last moment.




Summary:  Why Ford is not believable:

1.  All four people identified by Ford as witnesses have denied any knowledge of the alleged event;
2.  Witnesses have described Kavanaugh as a very ethical person, and that such behavior would have been totally out of character for him.
3.  Ford has provided no authenticating details that would corroborate her tale.
4.  Ford is a far-left, pro-abortion activist whose political activities reveal an anti-Trump bias.
5.  Ford has an animus against the Kavanaugh family because Kavanaugh's mother was the judge in the bankruptcy of Ford's parents, where the parents lost their house.
6.  Ford has resisted or refused all opportunity to testify and be interviewed by the Justice Committee, an apparent consciousness of her own potential perjury.

II.  Deborah Ramirez, Yale Student With Kavanaugh
After Christine Ford's accusation fell apart, the Democrats came up with a new woman willing to make apocryphal allegations against Kavanaugh.  A woman named Deborah Ramirez came forward to announce that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a Yale party in Kav's freshman year.  However, she admitted that she was very drunk and not sure that the culprit was actually Kavanaugh and it might have been someone else.  However, after six days of coaching from her attorneys, she was able to clarify her "memory" (imagination?) and Voila!  It was indeed Kavanaugh.

Ramirez reached out to her former Yale pals and classmates to corroborate her accusations.  Howefver, they did not corroborate her, they refuted her.  It didn't happen.  No one witnessed such an event, nor did they hear anything about it afterwards.  Her Yale pals even stated that if it had happened, they surely would have heard about it, and further, such behavior would be totally inconsistent with everything they knew about Kavanaugh.  Some of them wrote the statement below, posted on Twitter, and it does not corroborate Ramirez at all.





























Ramirez's story was turned down by the New York Times, and the Washington Post, because they saw the story as too weak and uncorroborated to publish.  The Times interviewed several of Ramirez's Yale friends and were unable to find any willing to confirm Ramirez's claim.  Only the execrable New Yorker ran with the story.  As David Horowitz noted on Twitter, the New York Times has low standards, but the New Yorker has none at all.

Summary:  Why Ramirez is not believable:

1.  Ramirez has no corroborating testimony of witnesses; in fact, potential witnesses deny the incident even happened.
2.  Former Yale students have described Kavanaugh as a very ethical person, and that such behavior would have been totally out of character for him.
3.  Ramirez admits she was stinking drunk at the party, has gaps in her memory from it, and could be mistaken about the incident.  (Her "I was drunk" story also serves to protect her from a perjury charge.  If anything she said is disproved, it is not because she lied, it is because she "misremembered.")
4.  Major liberal newspapers refused to run the story due to a lack of corroborating witnesses or other evidence.

Overall Conclusions:  Liberal activists who have made accusations against Kavanaugh are lying and are not to be believed.

Christine Blasey Ford, Far Left Activist and Slander Merchant

Here's a photo of Kavanaugh's slander artist, Christine Blasey Ford, somewhat modified by Photoshop:

A Couple of New Photoshops: Anderson Cooper and Cory Booker

CNN was caught faking some weather reports, one of a reporter straining against a strong wind while men in the background walked by at a normal gait, and one with Anderson Cooper standing almost waist-deep in water while camera men stood at the side with water only up to their soles.  Don Trump Jr. posted a meme about Cooper, and the latter was so angry about it he wrote a rebuttal.  CNN then allegedly asked readers to stop making memes that make fun of Anderson Cooper.  My Photoshop response is below.

In the travesty that passes for a judicial committee meeting to consider the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats have harped on the mythical  last minute charge from a far-left California activist that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when he was 17 and she 15. It is another Democrat dirty trick in their "politics of personal destruction."  Then someone found an old newspaper article written by execrable Cory Booker, Dem Senator from New Jersey, wherein Booker bragged about groping a young woman or teenage girl back in the day, when he put his hand on her breast.  Below is my Photoshop of Booker assaulting a young woman, and below that, the newspaper article by Booker bragging about his sexual assault.

Back Atcha

Since my last post I got busy with personal business:  I went to Spokane Valley with my wife to take care of some business for our oldest son, who had a stroke some months ago.  He is recovering but it will be a long haul for him.

One day after my post about the killer of Mollie Tibbetts, her body was found in a cornfield and a suspect arrested.  My deductions were pretty accurate.  I wrote:

These are some possibilities:

• Rape:  Evil people like Ted Bundy do exist and need no provocation.  They see what they want and just take it.  It might have been a crime of opportunity.

• Rage:  If her abductor made sexual advances and was rebuffed, he may have struck or choked Mollie to shut up her screaming or because he felt humiliated and wanted revenge.  Or both.

Personally, I think Mollie is dead, a victim of rape and murder.  I would guess it is the first crime of the perpetrator, someone who is a bit off, mentally.  He would be young, 22 - 25, someone with low impulse control.   

I was right about rage being a key motivation, and that the killer was  22 - 25, and that it was his first crime.  I am not psychic by any means, and these deductions were simply logical.  Elementary, my dear Watson.