Well that escalated quickly; no need to be a "dick" about it Shawn Mayo

Apparently there is a limit on character count so this is a two part response. Because this is, on many levels, a very important issue to discuss in my opinion.

Shawn, dude, did you mean the 4 people at the event? Because as you will hear in Ford's testimony, there were a handful of people at the alleged party, not 40. (52:21) - All those people gave sworn testimonies. All denied having any knowledge of the event in question (addressed further down). It is noted by her that this "was not one of the more notorious parties". (also referenced later)

--

Let's be honest, lying is a human trait. Everyone lies. -Everyone-. This notion of "believe women" is absurd. To believe someone simply because they have a vagina is comedic; as I would expect someone to find the statement "believe men" to be equally absurd and comedic.

"Virtue, therefore, is a mean state in the sense that it is able to hit the mean. Again, error is multiform (for evil is a form of the unlimited , as in the old Pythagorean imagery, and good of the limited), whereas success is possible in one way only (which is why it is easy to fail and difficult to succeed—easy to miss the target and difficult to hit it); so this is another reason why excess and deficiency are a mark of vice, and observance of the mean a mark of virtue" - Aristotle

In short: An "unlimited" statement ("believe women") misses the mark by being excessive in nature.

--

First let me get this out of the way before a bunch of people start branding me as some kind of "rape apologist" because of the observations I'm about to share:

I wholeheartedly believe that RAPE IS TERRIBLE HEINOUS ACT AND THOSE WHO RAPE PEOPLE SHOULD BE JUDGED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW AND SENT TO PRISON.

Here are my observations for those convinced "there not being enough time to investigate," and "the investigation wasn't thorough."

Below I reference a handful of timestamps from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ7ovA37u-0

Let's begin:

They conducted 7 FBI investigations; how many more were they supposed to have? When would it have been thorough enough?

There is approximately 8 hours (excluding breaks) worth of testimonials of both sides answering questions. What more could the FBI ask either of the two main parties involved that hasn't already been asked?

There would have been even more time had the democrats not held onto the letter for -months- leading up to the vote. A letter that was then leaked despite Ford asking for the matter to remain private. A letter that was only known by very few people.

None of the witnesses provided by Ford corroborated the story; including long time friend who later expressed that she was being pressured to change her sworn testimony. A friend who Ford threw under the bus during her testimony (4:02:03) framing her response to sound as though her "long time friend" was going through mental issues, when in fact the friend was going through physical issues.

There were numerous inconsistencies in Ford's testimony such as a fear of flying (1:57:55) and why she was unable to originally meet in private to investigate the matter (later discovered that she flies all the time for vacations, work, and to visit family).

Then the reason why she said the second door (54:50) was added due to the alleged assault (later found to be for a business decision to rent out a room to interns).

Then you have Ford stating: "I have no idea how polygraphs work." Later her ex boyfriend, under sworn testimony, states that she at one point in time trained a friend on how to pass a polygraph.

Pay attention to her body language when she is being asked about the polygraph. She gets squeamish, shrugs, and makes herself look small when answering whether she knows how polygraphs work. Very different than her behavior throughout the majority of her appearance. (2:33:43).

Additionally her verbal response is very fragmented (unlike when she is explaining how trauma manifests chemically; she is far more confident in those responses with her clear, straightforward, and concise answers). This, along with the squeamishness, happens any time I question the integrity of her answer.

It appears that one party was genuine, and the other was playing a part. I say genuine because the demeanor of one side was consistent throughout the entire appearance. The other side's demeanor kept changing depending on who was being spoken to, and what was being said; (smiling, laughing, sadness (appears mainly when a democrat is speaking), defiance (toward prosecutor and chairman), etc). In short very inconsistent. One moment on the verge of crying, and the next, smiles and laughs.

If someone is upset, and on the verge of crying, they are highly likely to have mucus build up and need to clear their sinuses. Not once on camera did she relieve any mucus. No clearing her throat, and no blowing her nose. Nothing to indicate mucus build up. Contrast that to the one that was being accused: he routinely needed to clear the mucus build up (sniffle). (ps, no sniffles from her... another "hmm????" moment considering she is the one that is traumatized, and not him)

She is wearing large lens glasses that make it difficult to see her eyes (hides expressions) and increases the appearance of doe eyes (a means of disabling defenses by appearing child like and innocence; plays on maternal instincts).

I recall reading in "Unmasking the Face" by Dr. Paul Ekman, that by contorting one's face to mimic a facial expression, the person can elicit a similar emotional response. When I mimic BK's facial expression, I recall the times when I'm on the verge of crying but need to keep my composure; (for instance when my aunt was dying of cancer and I was attempting to read a card I had purchased for her. I had to take breaks. Lips become tight and eyebrows come together). He also expresses anger and contempt, in addition to sadness, and in my opinion, rightfully so given his situation.

You can see the sorrow in his wife's face as well. When he mentioned the support of women that are behind him you can see as the blonde woman on the right verbally confirms that he has friends supporting him in the crowd as she mouths the word "yea" (05:34:01).

There are also times when the wife smiles at the things he mentions (coaching children for example). They are asymmetric smiles which indicate they are more likely to be genuine due to how the brain functions. Given the situation, being a moment being shrouded in sadness, it makes sense why it is less likely to be a full smile; it isn't a happy time, but a happy thing was said.

I love how Ford knows -exactly- how trauma manifests down to the chemicals released indicating she knows exactly -how- trauma works; one could say it is almost a textbook response. Makes sense though given that her place of employment specializes in trauma theory.

People argue that he was elusive in responses, yet there are countless times when Ford replies with "I don't know," or referes to the lawyers to answer. In addition, at times when she does give an answer her tone rises as though she's asking a question instead of providing an answer.

He being a judge, knows how critical one needs to be with words, else his words could be used against him.
Had he said: "Yea there was the one time I blacked out" or "One time I didn't remember the night before," he would have been done and over with regardless if the accusation was true.

"Well you blacked out once. How can you know it didn't happen on this occasion?" Followed by an instant game over for him. So I can understand the reason for being elusive in some answers.

Part 2
She on the other hand is a specialist in how humans, especially trauma survivors, tick. Therefore this trial was one man vs three; two lawyers and a professor of psychology. She knows how to manipulate a crowd.

Another "hmmm???" moment is when Ford says "I was willing... I was hoping they would come to me but then..." -pause- *looks directly at Fienstein* (1:58:15) (compared to looking at the chairman during the word "request")

When the democrats are talking to her, Ford looks over her glasses and tilts her head (a kind of bowing down / looking bashful / cutesy). She acts this way when I assume some fabricating is taking place; "look how cute I am, ignore what I am saying."

There are brief moments when she looks down her nose at the chairman and prosecutor on different occasions (2:33:32).

One could argue that the glasses are for reading and she has no choice but to look over the lenses, except she frequently looks through the glasses when talking, and only tilts her head and looks over the frames when giving a questionable response. Again; "look cute to disarm the listener."

There is a possible moment of "duping delight" (Telling Lies by Dr. Ekman page 65) where someone gets a bit of a rise from telling a lie and getting away with it. One of those instances may have leaked out when she said "nothing remarkable happened" - accompanied by a shrug (lack of confidence in what is being said)(4:02:43).

This is a a traumatizing sexual assault after all, I wouldn't think someone would smile while saying that. I would think the expression in that instant would be sadness and/or fear would be the leading emotion.

There are numerous other inconsistencies as well the list continues; hearing people have a conversation despite loud music(1:11:39), unable to say how she got home (1:13:43), expressing she would go into more detail about the other parties attended with him (chairman extends the time, but she has nothing to say (3:54:33)), not knowing when he polygraph had taken place despite her grandmother's funeral being that day, if not the previous day, etc, etc, etc.

In addition: a polygraph measures -emotional response- and not -truthiness- ("Telling Lies" page 51). Add to that fact that she was only asked two questions, and it kind of throws the polygraph, arranged by the lawyers (one of them being a Debra Katz; named DC's Leading MeToo Lawyer who was referred by Feinstein), out the window as a credible source of data.

I'm intrigued by the lawyer to her right smiling, with a bit of a chuckle following the statement "It was not one of there more notorious parties" (4:02:41). Again, this is a serious matter, what is so humorous about that statement considering your client is alleging sexual assault? My gut instinct says "he's laughing because he's thinking, great answer why no one else would remember the event." I would think someone disappearing from a party, of only a handful of people, would be something distinct and memorable. "Where did she go?" I would think her female friend would ask.

Then you have Mr. Whitehouse shaking his head no, and shrugging, while saying "You have met all of the standards of what I might call preliminary credibility with your initial statement." (1:48:15)

I especially like how Feinstein conceals a smile (5:08:59) after BK expresses during his opening statement that "Another democratic senator on this committee said quote, 'Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare'" - This whole time he is speaking she is sitting back with her arms crossed (defensive and distant) until she hears something that conjures up a smile. "Oh crap... I'm smiling! Quick conceal it and pretend like it didn't happen."

What was being said? Something that is insulting to him of course.

--

Then outside the testimony you have the two other attempts at character assassination by other women who soon after redacted their statements.

First the reason he shouldn't be nominated was "sexual assault," then "gang rapist," then "drinks too much," then "unprofessional temperament." Eventually they were going through his year book to find anything to validate their claims.

-Dozens- of women (including past girlfriends, women that work with/for him, and women that he taught at school) all said he was a stand up guy and unable to believe the accusations were true.

--

I feel terrible for everyone involved given the circus that became in regards to a very real issue for many people out there that have, and continue to deal with, trauma from these kinds of atrocious acts.

--

Lastly;

Consider this:
If he is such a terrible person, then why was it that his daughter asked to pray for Ford? That speaks volumes to me. Children are highly impressionable and it speaks to his character when the child empathizes and wants to pray for Ford.

That tells me the father has taught his daughter empathy and compassion. It also says that despite all the terrible things taking place, the language being used in the household was not hatred; else the daughter would have expressed hatred for Ford, and not compassion.


Bonus:
Here is someone else's findings on the matter that may give some context of Ford's background and affiliations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL6k5yOAFM

Here is someone else's take on the body language:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxr1VQ2dPI

Telling Lies by Dr. Ekman
http://communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/telling_lies-_clues_to_deceit_in_the_marketplace_politics_and_marriage.pdf

--

This is when a bunch of people begin to label me as a "rape apologist" and begin to scour my accounts looking for personal information to attack me. You could claim this is an exaggeration, except all I need do is point to the fact that senators were doxed and harassed after voicing their opinions during the trial.

Multiple women have opened up to me (including friends and family) and have told me of their terrible and heinous experiences of men raping/sexually assaulting them. There was no laughter or smiling following their statements. They were distraught and it wasn't until the topic changed and time had passed that the mood lightened.

These women are able to describe where, when, what they were wearing, what happened with a lot more detail than Ford was able to. This includes women that were sexually assaulted by their step fathers decades ago.

The only thing Ford was able to say with 100% certainty was that it was BK that was on top of her. Everything else, including how to contact a senator, how trauma works, when it happened, where it happened, how she got there, how she got home, etc., were all unknowns. The answers she did give are inconsistent (flying, double door, etc.) or "I don't know."

To reiterate: RAPE IS TERRIBLE HEINOUS ACT AND THOSE WHO RAPE PEOPLE SHOULD BE JUDGED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW AND SENT TO PRISON.

In addition these are observations and opinions based on what I have learned from reading about body language and facial expressions written by Dr. Ekman.

I'm simply pointing out inconsistencies I have observed and questioning.

In closing I have this to say:
"It might be inconvenient to admit that you don't actually care about the corruption of basic justice"

I'm open to anyone willing to dispute any of my observations.
I'm not an expert and these are only observations and opinions.