(CNSNews.com) - Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell identified many inconsistencies in Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which she described in a Sept. 30 letter to Senate Republicans.
“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” Mitchell wrote. “Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
Ford accused Judge Kavanaugh of groping her at a party when the two were in high school 36 years ago. Judge Kavanaugh vehemently denied the allegation.
In the letter, Mitchell, who represented Senate Republicans in her questioning of Ford at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday, Sept. 27, offered her analysis of Ford’s case from a legal perspective.
“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell wrote.
She outlined 10 different problems with Ford’s allegations and provided specific details to support each.
“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened,” Mitchell wrote, adding that Ford’s descriptions of the timing of the account varied.
For example, Ford told the Washington Post in a text that the assault happened in the “mid 1980s,” but told Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that it happened in the “early 80s.” Then, in a Sept. 16 article in the Washington Post, Ford alleged that the assault took place in the “summer of 1982.”
“Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.
She also pointed out that Ford has not provided any corroborating witnesses.
“Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended – including her lifelong friend,” Mitchell wrote.
Mitchell questioned Ford’s alleged fear of flying and her described symptoms of anxiety, claustrophobia and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
“Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions,” Mitchell wrote.
“The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies ‘fairly frequently’ for [her] hobbies and… work,’” Mitchell added.
In addition, Mitchell noted that Dr. Ford “struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name,” “changed her description of the incident” when speaking with her husband, “has no memory of key details of the night in question,” “has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault,” “has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations” and “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.”
Finally, Mitchell argued that “the activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account” and provided a timeline to back up her claim.
In the letter, Mitchell explained her approach to the job of questioning Ford, emphasizing that she is an expert in the legal world, not the political one.
“There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context,” Mitchell wrote.