I agree that such a distinction should be made, certainly in principle. In my original post I did not comment on whether the original accuser’s charges were valid or not, only that they could have been investigated much earlier and that the investigation could have been done confidentially in accord with Dr. Ford’s wishes. Political operatives used Dr. Ford to further their strategy of delay.
I’m not so sure about the other two. They were made later, have even less supporting corroboration or plausibility, if that is possible, and the accuser and/or their lawyers are extremely partisan.
The third one is so bizarre it’s hard not to see it as either delusional or dishonest overkill. Or do you believe a female college student went to nine parties and saw teenage boys lining up to rape girls and told no one and did not report it to authorities but kept coming back and got raped herself at the tenth party, and still told no one. Also in contrast with the first accuser, none of Kavanaugh’s male or female friends know the third one. And I’m sure you see her lawyer Avennati as a lawyer without political motive.
The second accuser admits to being passed out drunk on the floor and as having gaps in her memory. A few weeks back she called up old college friends and asked them about a party back in college. She then spent 6 days with her lawyer before becoming confident enough to let the press have her story. The people at the party, male and female, all Yale alumni, all deny it happened. She does not have notes from a therapist ftom six years ago or a lie detector test.
So, while I concur we must not assume the accusers are mistaken just because politicians may be using them to delay the process, I think we can fairly conclude that accusations two and three lack even minimal credibility.