Here’s the Problem With Kavanaugh’s Claim That Someone Else Assaulted Ford

Wrongful convictions based on misidentification have a key difference.

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is sworn-in before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018, to begin his testimony in his confirmation hearing to replace retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

In his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denied that he had sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford while they were in high school. But as all the Republicans on the committee have done thus far, he strained to insist that he didn’t want to call Ford a liar. Instead, he stated, “I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time.”

The implication by Kavanaugh is that he’s like so many wrongfully accused and convicted criminal defendants, whose lives were ruined by faulty memories and mistaken identities. It’s a theory that’s been bandied about by senators and conservative operatives since Ford’s allegations became public. But is it really possible that Ford is simply mistaken and got the wrong guy?

The data aren’t on Kavanaugh’s side. The National Registry of Exonerations has found that “unintentional misidentifications” contributed to about 30 percent of wrongful convictions. But researchers have noticed some patterns among those cases. “The great majority of defendants who have been exonerated after an eyewitness mistakenly identified them were strangers to the witnesses,” says Samuel Gross, co-founder of the registry and a law professor at the University of Michigan. That’s clearly not the case with Kavanaugh and Ford.

Rob Smith, executive director of the Justice Collaborative, a criminal justice reform nonprofit, says that misidentification is a serious problem in the criminal justice system. But he says the Kavanaugh case is nothing like those wrongful convictions. When it comes to mistaken ID, Smith says, “We’re usually talking about a stranger situation, cross-racial situations, situations where the person couldn’t have full visibility.” 

He’s annoyed that Republicans have tried to invoke the nation’s sordid history with wrongful convictions to attack Ford. “It’s disgraceful to co-opt the language of criminal justice reform, especially wrongful convictions, especially in this case.”

Kavanaugh’s suggestion that Ford was assaulted by someone other than him is the shorter version of the discredited theory proposed last week, complete with yearbook photos, by conservative pundit Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a longtime Kavanaugh friend. Whelan suggested on Twitter that another man was actually Ford’s assailant and that she simply confused him with Kavanaugh. That’s also the line used by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who strained to avoid calling Ford a liar when he suggested that “she’s mixed up.”

Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, whom the Republicans on the committee hired to question Ford, also asked whether the psychology professor might somehow have just gotten it wrong, and whether her assailant was, in fact, another Georgetown Prep classmate of Kavanaugh’s identified by Whelan. Ford disputed this notion during her testimony on Thursday and said she was “100 percent certain” it was Kavanaugh who’d attacked her. 

We want to hear from you: How are you reacting to the hearing? We may publish a selection of your responses in a follow-up story.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.