We still don’t know if he is guilty of any of these charges. These people don't know how to correctly question and this is not the correct forum for discovering the truth. We also don't know because of the way he chose to speak and respond to questions, He needs a real interrogation by someone trained. Heres what we do know he did. I want to make it clear. I don't know if he is guilty. I analyzed his testimony in previous testimony, in the FOX interview and today for multiple national media outlets Here is what we do know.
1. He chose over and over to evade questions
2. Over and over in previous testimony, in the Fox interview and today, he used the “I don’t know defense” Even though several times I have seen proof that several times in his testimony and interviews that he did know the answer to the questions he responded under oath to not knowing. That shows he uses "I don't know" to cover the truth.
3. His showed strong uncontrolled emotions. In fact, he used strong emotions that are known in deception detection as “cover emotions” Anger, Victim tears and Laughter. We don’t know if they are real, but I know he used the top three. It could be because he is innocent.
This belligerent personality and range of emotions are particularly unsettling. He seems to be a totally different person. It's a massive change.
I pointed out in my read of the FOX interview that his flat, robotic, repetitive emotionless interview seemed odd and odder to me even more considering the letter he wrote to the senate judiciary committee the day of the FOX interview. where he was angry. Specifically, he said in his letter to the SJC that he thought the reason this was happening was a witch hunt and a few hours later in the Fox interview when asked why this was happening he said, "I don't know?"
2. Over and over in previous testimony, in the Fox interview and today, he used the “I don’t know defense” Even though several times I have seen proof that several times in his testimony and interviews that he did know the answer to the questions he responded under oath to not knowing. That shows he uses "I don't know" to cover the truth.
3. His showed strong uncontrolled emotions. In fact, he used strong emotions that are known in deception detection as “cover emotions” Anger, Victim tears and Laughter. We don’t know if they are real, but I know he used the top three. It could be because he is innocent.
This belligerent personality and range of emotions are particularly unsettling. He seems to be a totally different person. It's a massive change.
I pointed out in my read of the FOX interview that his flat, robotic, repetitive emotionless interview seemed odd and odder to me even more considering the letter he wrote to the senate judiciary committee the day of the FOX interview. where he was angry. Specifically, he said in his letter to the SJC that he thought the reason this was happening was a witch hunt and a few hours later in the Fox interview when asked why this was happening he said, "I don't know?"
4. Other unregulated emotions - He also was often belligerent boastful and contemptuous. He seems to be a totally different person. It's a massive change.
5. He redefines terms, and or he uses totally different words or terms in his responses than the words or terms used in the question when asked about something.
He said several times, in the FOX interview and today, that he never Sexually Assaulted anyone, even when that is not what he was asked. That is a term that could mean different things and he was not asked to define it. There are dozens of examples such as saying "I feel asleep." when he was asked if he ever passed out after drinking.
One unsettling example of redefining terms is in his opening statement, in fact, every time Brett Kavanaugh said "all four witnesses say this never happened," he was lying. They, in fact, said they did not recall. So he redefined what those words mean. They said “I don’t recall” and he says that means it never happened. In fact, one of those four said she believes Ford!!! Other examples are giving his new definitions to the terms "Bogg" "Devils Triangle" and redefining the terms used around his yearbook entries about Renault. There is also something I found interesting. He said at one point he didn't do anything of a "sexual nature" to Dr. Ford. Was he redefining some action he took as "non-sexual" and was he saying he didn't do anything to the adult Dr. Ford because when she was the 15 year old she had a different last name? One of the reasons I think this is relevant is that he is known for judging by the "letter" of the law. The other reason is that I have seen this technique used so often by liars.
He said several times, in the FOX interview and today, that he never Sexually Assaulted anyone, even when that is not what he was asked. That is a term that could mean different things and he was not asked to define it. There are dozens of examples such as saying "I feel asleep." when he was asked if he ever passed out after drinking.
One unsettling example of redefining terms is in his opening statement, in fact, every time Brett Kavanaugh said "all four witnesses say this never happened," he was lying. They, in fact, said they did not recall. So he redefined what those words mean. They said “I don’t recall” and he says that means it never happened. In fact, one of those four said she believes Ford!!! Other examples are giving his new definitions to the terms "Bogg" "Devils Triangle" and redefining the terms used around his yearbook entries about Renault. There is also something I found interesting. He said at one point he didn't do anything of a "sexual nature" to Dr. Ford. Was he redefining some action he took as "non-sexual" and was he saying he didn't do anything to the adult Dr. Ford because when she was the 15 year old she had a different last name? One of the reasons I think this is relevant is that he is known for judging by the "letter" of the law. The other reason is that I have seen this technique used so often by liars.
6. Today and in the FOX interview In his answers about the accusations of behavior in his youth he bridges immediately in his response with what a good person he has been since then. That is irrelevant in response to a question about possible past behavior. Innocent people tend to keep denying the actual accusation. They stay in the event until they know you believe they didn't do the accused action. Liars tend to immediately divert to other times and other behavior. It doesn't' mean he is guilty it's just odd.
7. He also uses what is called a fog of confusion, humor, and the “everybody does it response” as in “We all like beer” response.
8. Severa; times he evades by answering a question with a question. For example when asked, "Do you drink beer?" he responds, "Do you drink beer?" instead of answering. And when asked the question asked, “Have you ever blacked out?” with belligerent and attacking nonverbal cues as he asks, "Have you?”
I was very briefly a substance abuse counselor and I had to question people every week on their drinking and their behavior. I would have asked him more specific questions like, How many beers did you typically drink at a party? What is the most you ever had to drink in one evening? You went to get parties did you ever drink more than other people at the party?. Did you ever fall down when drinking? and I certainly would have gone deeper on his reply when asked about if he ever blacked out that he "Fell Asleep" with a clarification of the term blacked out. The drinking questions are critical to the assault allegations and it was interesting that that line of questioning was interrupted.
7. He also uses what is called a fog of confusion, humor, and the “everybody does it response” as in “We all like beer” response.
8. Severa; times he evades by answering a question with a question. For example when asked, "Do you drink beer?" he responds, "Do you drink beer?" instead of answering. And when asked the question asked, “Have you ever blacked out?” with belligerent and attacking nonverbal cues as he asks, "Have you?”
I was very briefly a substance abuse counselor and I had to question people every week on their drinking and their behavior. I would have asked him more specific questions like, How many beers did you typically drink at a party? What is the most you ever had to drink in one evening? You went to get parties did you ever drink more than other people at the party?. Did you ever fall down when drinking? and I certainly would have gone deeper on his reply when asked about if he ever blacked out that he "Fell Asleep" with a clarification of the term blacked out. The drinking questions are critical to the assault allegations and it was interesting that that line of questioning was interrupted.
Another example of possible problems with the definition of words and or terms.
First Clip
"I swear today under oath before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge"
"I swear today under oath before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge"
First, let me say, I have analyzed him in previous testimony before Congress, during his FOX interview and today. He has a habit of rephrasing and redefining terms and of not answering direct questions. Here is says, “innocent of this charge. He has accused of multiple behaviors an actions against her and charges from other women, not ONE.”
This is a technique liars use to answer honestly but not answer the question as asked. In this case, he can think of one of the many charges against him that he doesn’t feel he is guilty to swear to before God.
He does it again saying, “I am innocent of THIS charge.” Rather than of all these charges. I also that he state this denial calmly as anger can be used as a cover emotion.
This is a technique liars use to answer honestly but not answer the question as asked. In this case, he can think of one of the many charges against him that he doesn’t feel he is guilty to swear to before God.
He does it again saying, “I am innocent of THIS charge.” Rather than of all these charges. I also that he state this denial calmly as anger can be used as a cover emotion.
His tears seem real and they can certainly call forth empathy.
His tears can show that he is absolutely innocent, but I have seen in my work throughout the years, people that are “caught” cry because they feel like victims of circumstances. I don’t know if he’s a malignant narcissist but malignant narcissist are known for claiming victimhood and eliciting sympathy. I have an additional problem with somebody crying during their congressional testimony. I seen people eviscerated during congressional testimony. He was not questioned with the same intensity as many have been. I’ve seen many other people questioned and he’s the first person I’ve ever seen cry.
Tears, laughter and anger are what we call in deception detection the
“Cover Emotions” the emotions that cover up their untruths.
His tears can show that he is absolutely innocent, but I have seen in my work throughout the years, people that are “caught” cry because they feel like victims of circumstances. I don’t know if he’s a malignant narcissist but malignant narcissist are known for claiming victimhood and eliciting sympathy. I have an additional problem with somebody crying during their congressional testimony. I seen people eviscerated during congressional testimony. He was not questioned with the same intensity as many have been. I’ve seen many other people questioned and he’s the first person I’ve ever seen cry.
Tears, laughter and anger are what we call in deception detection the
“Cover Emotions” the emotions that cover up their untruths.
His extreme emotions and inability to control his anger, rage, contempt, and tears is revealing. Again I lust say, I have analyzed dozens of congressional hearings and I have never seen this broad range of emotions or this intensity. He could be innocent.
Some may feel are justified some may say they are not appropriate to use before Congress when you are being vetted for your ability to be calm an impartial as a supreme court judge.
Some may feel are justified some may say they are not appropriate to use before Congress when you are being vetted for your ability to be calm an impartial as a supreme court judge.
There is a key piece of Ford’s testimony that is revelatory. She says she remembers the laughter. ( As does the second accuser) If Kavanagh did it, and he was laughing he may not have seen it or felt it as anything put “Horseplay.” He may not have had it register in his memory as anything wrong or bad. And or if he was drunk he may not have remembered at all. This is important because his anger is so strong and he seems so emphatic and he could actually feel he never did anything like this, that he never did anything wrong, and or he could possibly because it was not memorable for him because it was to him just fun/funny for/to him, or because he was drunk to not remember it all.
