By Jon Kelly
Vancouver, BC – Exclusive new video published to social media on September 28, 2018, explores multidimensional facets of Senate Judiciary Committee testimony from Stanford University School of Medicine research psychologist Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Granular audio analysis appears to partially confirm this Palo Alto University professor’s allegations she was sexually assaulted during a high school party in 1982. U.S. President Donald Trump called Dr. Ford a credible witness and has now directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct a supplemental background check of controversial United States Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, named by Dr. Ford as one of her alleged attackers. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is said to be encouraged “by the number of women coming forward to call out sexual misconduct” in MeToo America.
“Speech is a multidimensional stimulus” with “numerous ways you can extract a message from it,” explains Dr. Kourosh Saberi, Professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Social Sciences. Dr. Saberi coauthored research (reported by the journal Nature in 1999) using granular synthesis methods that time-reversed and resequenced human speech to test for intelligibility under conditions simulating transmission of audio signals over digital networks. This research informed now-widely implemented Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony and was headlined by the Associated Press as “Human Brain Understands Backwards Speech”.
This reporter’s expert independent study replicated the granular audio synthesis methods used by scientific researchers (including sampling, granular time-reversal and resequencing) in an attempt to detect sleep talking-like unconscious messages reflected in the spoken word testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during her appearance before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday. The study was not in vain and in fact did detect traces of what appear to be a survivor’s disclosures of sexual assault at the hands of one or more men, substantiating public testimony of the witness.
The following results highlight these findings in bold followed by transcripts of the statements from which they were derived. Expert commentary is embedded between each of the results.
Saw that. Speaks it: I remember being on the street and feeling an enormous sense of relief that I had escaped from the house and that Brett and Mark were not coming after me. Brett’s assault on me drastically altered my life. For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details. I did not want to tell my parents that I, at age 15, was in a house without any parents present, drinking beer with boys.
Comment: This message appears to amplify Dr. Ford’s remarks, expressing how what she witnessed in the past is what was described during her appearance before the Senate Judicial Committee. It seems to be telling us that she saw those events of which she spoke at that time.
I saw this. Know what I am. 2) Heal victim. 3) He wounded. That knife. Had to have it. 4) You had a block. An exam: The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed an extensive remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted to have a second front door, I described the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke a bit about his background. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.
Comment: The speaker becomes verbose expressing a burst of multiple messages during this part of her statement. The first message emphasizes standing as a witness while validating cognition of her identity. This is followed by a call for relief directed towards a perceived injured party, as if such a party did exist in this case. The messages then describe a past injury occurring due to the actions of a male perpetrator.
The instrument used to cause injury is described as a knife. During her testimony Dr. Ford stated that a then-teenage Judge Kavanaugh began “grinding his hips into me” suggesting the possibility she was able to feel his erect genital organ. The phallus as an instrument of assault is here rendered by the speaker as a dangerously sharp pointed and bladed symbolic weapon capable of causing injury.
In the language of symbols this weaponized attribution can describe male fertility and sexual arousal whose outcome leads to death. Use of such symbolism further equates rape as an expression of human sacrifice. Insistence of perpetrators intent upon obtaining a trophy in sexual conquest is emphasized by the final part of the message. Sequential references to a block and an exam are consistent with Dr. Ford’s testimony in which she told the committee “I struggled academically” both immediately after the alleged assault and during college.
Penis shoves. He’s very close. 2) Law save us. You remember. Their own use. Abandoned you: After that May 2012 therapy session, I did my best to suppress memories of the assault because recounting the details caused me to relive the experience, and caused panic attacks and anxiety. Occasionally I would discuss the assault in individual therapy, but talking about it caused me to relive the trauma, so I tried not to think about it or discuss it.
Comment: Here the symbolic phallus from earlier is now revealed as the male reproductive organ asserted by “grinding” where the sense of proximity is highlighted as well. By closeness the speaker may be describing physical proximity (“on top of me”) during a course of violent activities perceived as leading to sexual penetration and male orgasm during which Dr. Ford feared for her life. Opening remarks emphasized “I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.”
An appeal to justice suggests Dr. Ford’s fundamental belief in the system of laws represented by the Supreme Court emphasized in her citation of civic duty as a key reason for her appearance before the committee. Affirming her recollection the messages goes on to cite feelings of exploitation and isolation, aligned with testimony stating “Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.”
They rape her: But over the years, I went through periods where I thought about Brett’s attack. I confided in some close friends that I had an experience with sexual assault. Occasionally I stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge but I did not use his name. I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett’s assault, and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of The Washington Post story on September 16, 2018.
Comment: Use of infinitive here suggests an incident that perpetuates in the mind of the victim long after the alleged assault is over. While Dr. Ford does not claim to be have been physically penetrated, her feelings of diminished personhood and psychological injury can be understood as consequences of trespasses of personal boundaries resulting from a non-consensual physical attack. It seems that during the reported incident Dr. Ford perceived intent to rape and that she was confronted by perpetrators who had already raped her in their minds.
Citations of terror offered to the committee also suggested Dr. Ford’s concerns that her appearance Thursday to discuss these allegations could potentially (and already had in the public sphere) serve to further abuse resulting in the social and psychological rape of her reputation and personhood. “I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school,” Dr. Ford stated in opening remarks.
My nerve. I’m damaged. 2) He rapes. The death bar. 3) The man broke me. 4) Give us some soda: But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy. This all changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his potential nomination would know about this assault.
Comment: Dr. Ford’s fragility was evident in her presentation and testimony where for example she claimed to have insisted against her husband’s wishes on renovating the Ford family home to include two front doors as a means of alleviating apparent lifelong feelings of claustrophobia resulting from the reported assault.
Rape again appears in the infinitive ascribed to a male assailant within a near-fatal context consistent with witness testimony. The words “death” and “bar” are paired together in sequence. Psychological implications of a reported sexual assault’s aftermath are here expressed in a phallic way that alludes to the male organ’s geometry in terms of language common to both alcohol dispensaries and legal institutions of which the alleged assailant is a highly visible consumer, a member and nominee.
The notion of ruptured identity as consequence of a male perpetrator’s crimes against a minor is here expressed using language also found in testimony ascribed to another victim who survived severe sexual and physical abuse proven in a court of law. In a recent report published by People an anonymous survivor of New Mexico’s Aggressive Christianity Missions Training Corps was said to have explained how “Emotionally, she broke me as a child to the point where I still today struggle with my own self-confidence, my self-esteem, my sense of worth.” Based upon such testimony founding leader Deborah Greene was sentenced to 72 years in prison by a Thirteenth Judicial District Court judge.
The final reference to soda is consistent with the large bottle of Coca Cola from which Dr. Ford poured soda into her glass during Thursday’s appearance before the committee. This reference appears to bring the content of her messages into compliance with then-present-time events during which she accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Parallelism with present events gives rise to the suggestion that the otherwise unnamed 1982 male rapist described in her messages may have indeed been the accused nominee of today.