Note: Not sure of the analyst (he doesn’t seem to understand that this is not a “judge” and “jury” scenario but rather a Committee hearing; also, he seems to mock at times which undermines his credibility). Nonetheless, listen and judge for yourselves — he does try to be neutral in parts but should drop the ‘vocal re-enactments’).
On a side note, there are those who stress that Mrs. Ford is being put on trial herself which, they say, isn’t fair. Okay, from an emotional/subjective/”ideal world” point of view, it may not be fair. However, from a purely objective, rational, and critically-thinking point of view, it must be done. Any time any accuser brings any charge against any other person concerning any subject matter, the statements of both sides must be weighed/judged/tried (as being part of the overall evidence). The accuser has an absolute right to be impartially, objectively, and carefully heard — as does the accused. The accuser has an absolute right not to be demeaned, threatened, or slandered before or during the bringing of his/her testimony — as does the accused. It is my opinion that the accuser, and accused, are both innocent until proven guilty. The accuser is innocent of lying, making it up, being part of some greater conspiracy, etc. until proven guilty — and the accused is innocent of lying, of committing the alleged crime, etc. until proven guilty.
However, we can have hunches, leanings, etc., when they are grounded solely upon the available evidence, when such evidence is critically evaluated, and the conclusions drawn from them are sound. So without regard to gender, without regard to political affiliation, without regard to anything subjective/biased, we must ask (in light of memory, in light of witness testimony, in light of sworn affidavits, in light of timelines/distances, etc.), is there enough evidence to suggest that the accused is guilty of the crime(s) alleged by the accuser? If there isn’t enough evidence, and we treat the accused as guilty nonetheless, it sets a most dangerous precedent. What it does is allow such accusations to become political weapons — e.g., ‘If you do not like the other side, raise such accusations against them, tarnish their reputation, get them to drop out (or step down if already in office, or threaten them with impeachment, or sully their name to the point that they are effectively ineffective), and do that as often as necessary until either we get to choose who we want or the other side gives us someone that we are okay with.’ Such is a very dangerous scenario… we simply cannot give into such nonsense, especially when the official record (thus far at least) simply does not support clear and convincing evidence of wrong doing.
Eye Cues: Those familiar with NLP will recognise the below. I am providing it to help better understand the video analysis the speaker is giving. Suffice to say that when facing a right-handed person who is recalling a visual memory (Vr), as opposed to imagining or constructing a visual image (Vc), there eyes will usually go up in the Vr direction. During the points where you would expect to see the visual memory recall cues (eye movements), there is either nothing, or something bordering on visual construction and not recall going on. Nevertheless, judge for yourselves.