Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have released her polygraph report and it looks like there might be some holes in her story. Ford accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault over three decades ago. Ford took the polygraph on August 7th, which is important to know, because of that specific date will come into question shortly.

Her polygraph was done by Jeremiah Hanafin, a former FBI agent, at a Hilton hotel in Maryland, which is info according to “Polygraph Examination Report” put together by Hanafin.

Before that, Ford met with lawyer Lisa Banks and put together a handwritten statement. Ford signed it and gave it to Hanafin. Then Hanafin interviewed Ford and Banks went somewhere else, so that Ford and Hanafin were together.

Fox News reports:

“In the handwritten statement, Ford writes that “there were 4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party.

Trending: MUST WATCH: His 11-Yr-Old Daughter Inspired Him To Speak Out Against Vaccine Mandates...And When He Did, His Powerful Story About Being Fired From His Highly Specialized Job Went Viral

But in Ford’s letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, Ford gave a different tally, writing that the gathering “included me and 4 others.”

That’s a huge discrepancy. Which one is it? Five people or more than five? If it’s just Ford and four boys, then she probably would be able to remember them. If it’s a larger group, then she also would have remembered that. Why does it seem like Ford said both, leading readers to believe she’s not sure which one it really is?

Fox News continued:

“All of the witnesses Ford has identified at the party, including Kavanaugh, Judge, and another classmate, Patrick Smyth, have denied knowledge of the alleged assault under penalty of felony in statements to the Judiciary Committee.

However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford’s at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as the fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.”

The witnesses deny anything happened. Another witness emerged, a woman, and she denies knowing him or being at a party with him. Now those “witnesses” don’t seem like witnesses anymore because there’s possibly no story that actually exists. Usually, the person making such hard accusations would have at least one witness come forward, but there’s none so far.

And now the polygraph. You can read it at the link below, or continue reading my report on it.


Apparently the polygraph had two majorly relevant questions. “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?” Irrelevent questions are often asked to determine a baseline physiological response, which Fox News reported that it helps detect deception upon lies on the relevant questions.

Fox News kept going:

The test measured “thoracic and abdominal respiration, galvanic skin response, and cardiac activity,” Hanafin wrote in the report.

The former FBI agent then ran the results of Ford’s two “no” responses through three separate scoring algorithms, including one developed by Johns Hopkins University. All three algorithms concluded that Ford’s responses did not indicate apparent deception, with one putting the probability that she was lying at .002 and another putting it at less than .02.

“It’s not the result of the polygraph; it is what polygraph subjects say during the polygraph interview that is most valuable,” said Thomas Mauriello, a lecturer in criminology at the University of Maryland who worked as a senior polygraph examiner at the Defense Department.

“The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question.  A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think,” Mauriello added. “A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination.”

After all of this, it’s no surprise that people have various opinions on this.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked “If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward … why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?” It was noted that polygraph tests can cost around $1,000.

That’s a good question. If someone accuses another person of sexual assault but has no intention of going through with their story, then why are they paying for a polygraph test?

What exactly is the point of that? That’s very similar to asking someone why Ford went to Feinstein instead of the police, which allows us to question the true motive in her accusations.

When it’s all said and done, it should be known that polygraphs can be beaten.

“James Gagliano, a former FBI agent who led a SWAT team in New York for several years and now teaches at St. John’s University, told Fox News that while polygraphs are valuable, they “can be beaten.”

Gagliano, who said he was subjected to several polygraphs at the FBI but never administered one himself, said people can sometimes pass polygraphs if they’ve convinced themselves they are telling the truth: “It’s not a lie if you believe it,” he said.

“Everyone knows polygraph exams can be beaten,” Gagliano added. “If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don’t have a conscience, if you don’t know right from wrong — you can beat it.”

The Right Scoop pointed out some other discrepancies with Ford’s polygraph.

Note the date on the Polygraph: August 7th. According to Ford’s original letter to Feinstein, she said:

I am currently vacationing in the mid-Atlantic until August 7th and will be in California after August 10th.

If she was away until August 7th, and then again until August 10, then did she stop in between travels to take a random polygraph?

Benny Johnson from the Daily Caller pointed out that Ford allegedly changed her story, of course, with the number of people who were there.

Paul Sperry questions if this was some guy named Brett, or actually Brett Kavanaugh, which is a very good thing to consider.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.