Mistaken Identity?

Does Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser have the wrong guy?

It’s beginning to look like something out of an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

Yesterday, I posited that the reason Christine Blasey Ford—who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempted sexual assault against her 35 years ago, while they were both still in high school—doesn’t want to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee is because she’s afraid that she will end up in legal jeopardy by perjuring herself. But with the new whispers going around town right now, a new possibility may have arisen—a plot twist that the people running Ford’s PR show might not have anticipated.

It started with a tweet from Ed Whelan, who blogs for National Review’s Bench Memos and isn’t exactly known for spinning conspiracy theories:

But what kind of evidence could that be? Kathleen Parker, writing in the Washington Post of all places, has an idea:

> In one of Brett M. Kavanaugh’s responses to allegations that he sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl when he was in high school, a charge he has denied “categorically and unequivocally,” he suggested that, perhaps, this was a case of mistaken identity.

> Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). . .reiterated this notion, saying that perhaps the accuser was “mixed up.” And on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board also floated the possibility of mistaken identity.

> Could there have been another, Kavanaugh-ish-looking teen at the house that night, who might have attacked Ford?

It’s a novel theory, to be sure, but hardly outside the bounds of believability. Consider the facts:

  • Kavanaugh has stated flatly that he never assaulted Ford, or any other woman for that matter. There was no equivocation, no parsing of words, no Bill Clintonesque phrasing that would allow him to weasel out of a jam if he got caught in a lie. He simply denied it ever happened, full stop, and is willing to say so under oath. That means he is absolutely confident that there is no evidence that would refute that statement—which is atyipcal behavior from a guilty man, particularly one who has worked in Washington politics.
  • The people representing Ford have said that she took a polygraph to prove she wasn’t lying, and passed it—but this only indicates that Ford believes that an attack took place, and that Kavanaugh was her attacker. It’s entirely possible, however, that she was correct about what happened but mistaken about who did it.
  • Ford has admitted that her memory of the event is fuzzy at best. She can’t recall exactly where the attack allegedly occurred or even when—which isn’t surprising, as everything supposedly happened at a party where large amounts of alcohol were consumed. Assuming that Ford suffered an actual assualt, is it really that big of a stretch that her memory of the perpetrator might also be flawed?

Mistaken identity would certainly reconcile Kavanaugh and Ford’s version of events. Both could be telling the truth, but with Ford tragically wrong on a crucial statement of fact. In that scenario, she could well be an innocent victim of a terrible crime—even though her search for justice has turned into a grave miscarriage of the same.

The only guilty parties in this circumstance would be the Democrat politicians and activists who have attempted to turn the trauma suffered by a 15 year old girl into a weapon with which they hoped to destroy the reputation of a good man. One can easily imagine them convincing Ford to come forward with her accusations, even if she wasn’t sure about Kavanaugh, promising her that she would never have to testify—that the seriousness of the charge and the resulting media firestorm would be enough to get him to withdraw.

Only that didn’t happen—and now Ford is in way over her head. If you were her, would you count on those same Democrats to have your back if this whole thing goes sideways?

The next few days will be interesting, to say the least.

No. 1-9

Whelan knew who Ford was before the White House and the public ever knew. How did he get her name to search for her on LinkedIn?

The only way he gets that name is from Kavanaugh who would only have that name if he actually did assault her and remembers the incident. Kavanaugh tells Whelan, Whelan starts digging and working with a PR firm(and Hatch) to come up with the "Mistaken Identity" theory as a last ditch defense.

Someone better explain this.


So how do you prove mistaken identity? Go through the yearbooks to see if anyone looks at all like the judge? Plead with the guy to come forward and brand himself as a sex crazed teenager. It ain't going to happen. Now she wants to testify first, and with the judge out of the room. I thought the Constitution said we have a right to face our accusers. They also want to move it to Thursday, then Monday, then Wednesday and so on. For gosh sakes the guys been through enough. His families getting death threats. When we start punishing people for what the did in high school every kid that goes to Florida for spring break will never find work every.


I think she was simply paid by the dems to tell this story. Why else would they hold the letter until AFTER the hearing when that would have been the appropriate time to bring it up? The dems are known for their lying, and dirty schemes to get what they want. This is not that much of a stretch!


It was a repressed memory drawn out under counseling. It can have value in counseling as a personal place where the person being counseled is starting from. Outside of counseling it is worthless. It is her truth. She believes it. We do not have the ability to confirm or deny her memory.


I think it's easily a case of mistaken identity. Memory is a fickle thing. The accuser need not have malice to be wrong.