Here is more information about how to conduct an interview and assess witnesses. Since Dr. Geiselman is an overpaid professor at a for sure liberal institution, this is likely all part of a plot.
"As an investigator, you may find a serving of ‘TEDS PIE’ to be helpful when you’re taking statements about a shooting from involved officers and witnesses.That acronym is offered as a questioning tool by Dr. Edward Geiselman, co-developer of the cognitive interviewing technique and a faculty member for the Force Science Certification Course.

The letters stand for various prompts you can use to probe deeper into a subject’s memories.

Open-ended questions
Cognitive interviewing is a method for gathering descriptive recollections of an event by encouraging an uninterrupted, free-flowing narrative from the person being questioned. In contrast to the stereotypical interrogation approach, the subject in a cognitive interview does about 80 percent of the talking, while the investigator speaks only about 20 percent of the time, primarily by posing open-ended questions that keep the interviewee supplying needed, detailed information.

“Closed-ended questions require only short answers and can signal to the officer or witness that his or her role is to speak only when spoken to during the interview. This can stifle meaty responses,” explained Geiselman, a psychology professor at UCLA. “Responses to open-ended questions tend to be more extensive and are more likely to be accurate,” Geiselman added.

During the subject’s grand narrative, Geiselman said, the cognitive interviewer notes areas that require follow up when the initial story is concluded. “The strategy then is to ask the interviewee to focus his memory and elaborate about one segment of the narrative at a time.

“This follow-up questioning begins with your asking an open-ended question: ‘Can you tell me more about...’ whatever element of the grand narrative — people, places, objects and conversations. — you want to explore in greater depth at that moment.

“The problem is that if you ask this same question over and over as you move through the various sections you want to follow up on, the interview may begin to seem stilted, stale and predictable, and the subject may become annoyed, fatigued, or disinterested.”

Deploying TEDS PIE
That’s where TEDS PIE comes in. It’s a means of prefacing follow-up questions that Geiselman says he learned from investigators with the London Metro Police, an agency that has worked on a number of research projects with the Force Science Institute.

TEDS stands for tell me, explain to me, describe to me and show me and PIE stands for precisely, in detail and exactly.

“By pairing a term from TEDS with a term from PIE, you have a different way of introducing the same open-ended question as you go through the segments you want the interviewee to expand on,” Geiselman said. “You’re still making the same inquiry repeatedly, but it doesn’t appear that way to the subject.”

As a reminder of the effectiveness of cognitive interviewing, he added, “Truthful subjects generally like answering open-ended questions and will work hard to mine their memories for as full an account as possible. Not so much those subjects who need to be deceptive. Overwhelmingly, they prefer closed-ended questions that let them get by with abbreviated statements.”
Lots more here to read if you are interested
https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...ying-suspects/
RELATED ARTICLES
Court rulings on interviews by law enforcement
7 types of witnesses and how to interview them
5 strategies for selecting interrogation themes
Quickly read, analyze, and interpret body language

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is stupid...he was under oath so he simply told the truth

Pete you really know how to make hair hurt...:wave:

I think you’re three years in without a meaningful post...seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't post the pic because I was implying Ford was a liar I did so because I thought it was hilarious and clever.........but I still love you...

glad you are taking the time to keep track....:hihi:

This classmate says he committed perjury
https://youtu.be/MLLjYGBWLyo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh good...we can lock him up and save everyone a lot of trouble next week :claps:

Certainly if this is important enough to be featured on YouTube......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

While jail time may not be appropriate, lying under oath when you’re trying to become a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court is probably something you’d consider to be a character revelation. And one that we might not love to have decide some of the more important cases involving the constitution in our land.

At this time I feel like he’s a cooked goose. He would have been better served to just come out and play even keeled. The minute he got emotional, you could see him start to lose control of some of his answers.

I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes...but then again I’d NEVER appoint me to the Supreme Court.

But I do appreciate the man’s honesty about his relationship with beer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about Dr Ford’s selective fear of flying? she can fly on vacation, but not to testify? Her fear of flying is a function of the reason for her going to her destination? That’s creative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=23594271 7 phrases in a liar's vocabulary

it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt.

I never suggested this as evidence of Guilt I suggested you bounce the entire list off both of their testimony and draw your own conclusion... but clearly an OCD Calendar is proof of Truth ??

I know right?...why would a Federal Judge with a spotless record(or anyone for that matter) with a Mom, wife and two young daughters get emotional the day after being publicly accused, during what should be one of the proudest moments of their lives, of having orchestrated "rape trains" ?

Ian "I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes.."

you left that out

see here’s the difference between us, i never posted anything about a calendar. Never. You posted an idiotic article implying he lied because he said “I’d never”. How about his tie, was that the kind of tie only a rapist would
wear?

you’ve all gone completely, and i mean completely, bonkers. An accusation is not evidence. If the fbi uncovers real evidence, i’ll be the first one saying he’s unfit. until then, this is all politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would he be "unfit"?

Really you would ask why he is unfit if the FBI uncovered evidence to corroborate her accusations? If she had told authorities then and he was convicted, he would be automatically unfit, why would that change now, just because he cleaned up his act?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was a minor then. The FBI would not have investigated it then. The local authorities would not have been given the time, the place, no corroborating witnesses, would not have had anything to investigate beyond her accusation, no prosecutor would have tried to convict him on those grounds. Again, he was a minor and would not have been tried as an adult. His record would have been sealed.

But being "unfit" because of a transgression as a minor, then leading a crimeless life after that, having a record as a judge to review which showed nothing to disqualify him, rather, it showing he was supremely qualified as stated by the bar association, having passed six FBI checks? Being called "unfit" after that seems strange. Especially given how "fit" various politicians and Presidents were to serve, and serve well by many accounts, after having done far worse than Kavanaugh is accused of, and having done them while an adult and actually in office.

Call BS, have you not watched the local news, at that age he could very well have been prosecuted as an adult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As to your response to ONE of my points, it depends on the alleged crime. Third degree sexual assault in Maryland can refer a minor to adult court. Ms. Ford's description doesn't seem to fully meet the definition of third degree of assault. Also taken into consideration is the defendant's past behavior. Is it a first offense. And is there sufficient evidence that the crime occurred and that the defendant did it.

The overall situation that Ms. Ford describes would be a very weak one in order to refer the case to adult court.

At this point Cavanaugh has bigger problems. It's it's proved he's lied to the committee, that disqualifies him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think your wrong in that this possibly is a second degree sex offense and could have bumped him up to be tried as an adult, but it's a moot point at this point legally. My point was surprise that your ok with a guy being guilty at 17 of committing a second or even third degree sex offense getting nominated and voted to the supreme court. I guess your moral standards are different than mine, once a scum bag capable of that, down deep your always capable; given the right amount of skiis.

thanks Captain Obvious

Even if you take the sexual assault out of the equation, does he seem to have the temperament and cool to handle some of the most challenging decisions to come; not to mention the blatantly partisan views he ranted about. Sure everyone on this board and the general public are entitled to those partisan views, but the high court is not supposed to have those partisan views.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My moral and legal standards don't allow me to call someone a scum bag on hearsay. Nor do I believe that someone having done what he is accused of will always after do or want to repeat such a thing. And when he has 36 years of proper life and superior achievement following what he was supposed to have done, I cannot get myself to call him a scumbag, not morally, legally, or any other way.

And I certainly can't hold Kavanaugh to a higher standard than those politicians who have done worse than he is accused of, even as adults, and while in office, and were still considered not only fit, but highly competent, successful, and admired for their work.

And I don't know what skeletons all the other Justices of the Supreme Court have in their closets. I doubt if they, or if even any, were saints. If the FBI were to fully investigate their intimate pasts, I suspect some bad stuff would be found. But once appointed, and in practice, none seem to be called unfit. Wrong, maybe, but not unfit.

I don't know if my moral standards are different than yours. It may just take more to trigger them.

this is stupid...stop repeating talking points...this is the left repeatedly kicking someone in the balls and mocking them for crying

Stop trying so hard to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&. I'm not fishing with you anymore
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is ridiculous to say or think that SCOTUS Justices are not entitled to have partisan views. I don't doubt at all that they all do. It's that they must not insert those views in their judicial thinking or decisions.

It is curious to me that you think they shouldn't have partisan views. If you believe that it is proper to interpret the Constitution by personal views of justice instead of always by the meaning of the text, wouldn't those personal views of justice influence which party they supported and voted for. And, therefor, wouldn't their partisan views help define their view of justice.

Indeed, non-textualist Progressive Justices often do adjudicate by philosophical notions that match Progressive party ideology rather than on the original meaning of the text.

I have no problem with him crying or showing real emotion, clearly that would be normal under the circumstances. I have issues with the opening rant, which may have been more for Trump or his GOP supporters benefit, but was IMHO blatantly partisan and the suggested conspiracy is nuts.

Ford wanted no publicity, in fact the letter was penned when K was only on the short list and not even nominated. Did someone leak it for political reasons, obviously and that I’m sure is a shock to you as it’s so unlike the norm in DC.

That doesn’t diminish the credibility of the original accusations or the reasonable request for an FBI investigation in light of them, no big Clinton deep state conspiracy here🤣
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just so we’re clear here... that was referring to emotionally replying, not orchestrating rape trains :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

heheheh....good idea to be VERY clear these days with everyone on edge :D

Being mad is one thing, blaming it on a political hit job which was a favor to the clintons and then lying about other parts of your life is entirely another.

Like I said, I don’t think I can blame him, but the fact that he did what he did certainly hurt his chances of being confirmed.

My bet is that they find out he blacked out over and over and he doesn’t make it through confirmation on the basis of the fact that he lied.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's been elected democrats MET AND ORGANIZED, the leftist nuts in costumes and tee shirts, left wing organizations and lawyers and leftist media that have assaulted him since he was nominated....that's why it would be absolutely partisan,,,,good grief there was absolutely a "conspiracy" to thwart his nomination...they didn't hide it at all

what did he lie about?...should be pretty easy to demonstrate and send him packing

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is calling for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn following two sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Gillibrand on Sunday tweeted her support for Deborah Ramirez, the woman who hours earlier went public in The New Yorker with her accusations against Kavanaugh. Ramirez is alleging that Kavanaugh exposed himself without her consent when the two attended Yale University together in the 1980s.



"Enough is enough," she continued. "One credible sexual assault claim should have been too many "

"Two is an embarrassment," she added.

Doesn’t seem like it takes much effort.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He seems to have lied about his role in Bush’s admin and about stolen dem documents for a start. Also seems pretty clear he’s misled n his youth not even counting the assault allegations.

But even putting all that aside. His partisan statement on the left, democrats and the Clintons destroys any inkling he could be impartial on the bench.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t know whose house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).

My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this ( and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).

I have a fear of flying , but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.

I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test( the afternoon of my grandmothers funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.

My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.

My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.

I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.

I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device