One other factor: This man might have a witness to attest to his story and his version of events. Dr. Ford’s claim (as I read in the WashPost) is that there were 2 men in the room.
If Dr. Ford’s story is basically true, and she just got the guy mixed up (not impossible, it was a 34 year old recovered memory!) then the guy should be able to name the other man in the room.
And with a witness to back his version of events - he would undoubtedly say he was just horsing around and they had no intention of rape or harming her - it would flip the story on its head. From 1 accuser and 2 deniers, to 1 accuser and 2 confessors. They would agree to the general fact pattern, and disagree only on motive and identity.
Good post.
One other factor: This man might have a witness to attest to his story and his version of events. Dr. Ford’s claim (as I read in the WashPost) is that there were 2 men in the room.
If Dr. Ford’s story is basically true, and she just got the guy mixed up (not impossible, it was a 34 year old recovered memory!) then the guy should be able to name the other man in the room.
And with a witness to back his version of events - he would undoubtedly say he was just horsing around and they had no intention of rape or harming her - it would flip the story on its head. From 1 accuser and 2 deniers, to 1 accuser and 2 confessors. They would agree to the general fact pattern, and disagree only on motive and identity.
/
/
This would be the best scenario. Why? Because it was horseplay because she even admits knowing Garrett.
Coincidently, Garrett and Mark Judge are also friends, so the second man could still be Mark Judge. Judge wrote a book about his alcoholism, partying and binge drinking in high school, so he would fit that part of Ford's story too...