The key words here are "poorly educated writer." I earned my PHD in 1994. What I observed was so much concern with gender-bias that a woman could be excused for her mistakes.
Writing has suffered so much because of the gender-bias business that today most people use a plural pronoun when there is clearly only one person being written about - it takes a bit of thought to correctly write using personal pronouns and who bothers today? I'd not be surprised to find that she wrote that.

Agreed, and I hope that is one of the questions she gets asked today: "Are you being paid to present this accusation?" It's a legitimate question because it gets at why she's bringing this up now as an 11th hour objection using an unverified event from more than 35 years ago.

No. Me dino is more interested in how much someone with a PhD is being paid to lie.
I was also wondering why Gloria Allred wasn't trotting out accusers until I noticed this week that she's busy with Bill Cosby.
Why am I suddenly thinking of Tony Soprano's "front" with an office at Barone Sanitation?

Well, she definitely should have learned something in all that education. I'd think that as a Ph.D. candidate she would have needed to have written and defended her dissertation, no?

But the thing is: even if she didn't write it, she's taking ownership of it as having come from her mouth.

As the hearing are proceeding I can only manage to listen for just a minute or two at a time, due to the spewing of so much BS, so I am pretty sure I am missing a lot. But it seems to me that a good bit of her testimony is how much she has been harrassed since the allegation became public.

What does that have to do with JUDGE (Not "Mr.") Kavanaugh's fitness to be on the Supreme Court? I don't care how much she is being harrassed, that has nothing to do with him.

Even as a kid, I wasn't fond of the circus. I haven't found that changing at this point....

We disagree on the method used in defense.
I think this method is irrational rubbish. But so is most of politics. ;^)
I said I was biased - in favor of innocence until proven guilty.

Nothing is irrelevant.

The woman decided to ruin the life of a decent man and his family. It is the minimum to look at the motivation (which still has not been exposed) and pick apart anything she comes forward with.

Good to know that you are not biased, according to your statement.

"The woman is fully aware"
So... this doesn't change my point.
She may have poor grammar and when she writes something that she can't trust a proofreader to check the result is less than professional.
I think it likely that the "experience" being described is less than accurate, but this picking apart the grammar of the letter is irrelevant rubbish, too.
I have been falsely accused of such an act before and my bias is in favor of the accused - innocent until proven guilty with real evidence. Smearing his name is unconscionable.

Oh, come on FFA.

The woman is fully aware that the entire country is watching what she is doing/saying.

This is not about you but Ford.

The logical error is meaningful, e.g. that she claimed fear of flying but traveled long distances by air. This is not the first lie she is caught at: she also stated she did not talk to anybody about this "incident" but came forward with 3 people a day or two ago to whom she allegedly talked. So which version should we believe?

She probably has a student to proof read everything she publishes. When I was in college, I worked full time (and went to school at night.) My job at a CPA firm was proof reading everything that was to leave the office. There were lots of corrections needed - more technical than not, and the technical work was the entire purpose of the firm. But there were errors of writing, too. I wasn't the most popular person there since my job was to show everyone their mistakes ;^)

I think it really is: A Post Modernist Show...without the popcorn!

It is not relevant who wrote and who composed that letter.
What matters is the signature.

Another thought-
Soon after an unpleasant event, bad writing may indicate emotional distress,
but after 36 years it could mean a show is being put on.

If that's the way she writes, as a professor, then that is really sad...no wonder our kids can't write!

I read this information on another site and it seems credible to me. Dr Ford does not and neither does Senator Feinstein.

I submit that having a Ph.D. does not mean the person can write well without making arguable grammatical errors. A background in psychology and statistics does not ensure good grammar.
Mike Adams sometimes has good points to make in his articles, but this one is biased rubbish, imo.

Christine Blasey Ford, has a Ph.D. and is a highly educated individual with several decades of writing experience.
Is it likely she would make these mistakes?