Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.
Interesting take. So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter? In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other. I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence. Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying. You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying. You can't prove she is lying.
I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge. That actually isn't the case. It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done. One accuser and he would have made it through. Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.
If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can. The FBI would help. They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.
That's the thing, one does not have to choose to believe one or the other. One can learn to accept that sometimes there simply is no answer to be found. This does not imply that should be a rushed decision, but it ultimately may be the answer when there is not definitive way to prove what the truth is.
As for the multiple accusers angle, again, accusations without proof are still just accusations. A second accusation of a different event doesn't prove the first accusation true. Each accusation should be able to stand on it's own merits.
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations. In both scenarios Kavanaugh is accused of being extremely drunk. His friends are accused of being very drunk. And both times there was sexual misconduct aimed at Kavanaugh and not his drunk friends.
There appears to be much evidence that Kavanaugh was a huge drinker both at Georgetown Prep and Yale. Ford told her husband and therapist about her attack 6 years ago. She passed a lie detector test, which isn't accepted proof in a court of law but suggests she is telling the truth.
And regardless of how many jokes are being made about her exact memories, it was 36 years ago and most people my age can not remember exact details of the where and when of matters, sometimes even important matters. For instance, I can't remember the name of the hotel I stayed in for my honeymoon, but do remember it was in San Juan. Important event in my life but I can't recall all I did or what hotel I stayed in. Probably because alcohol was involved.
And since alcohol was involved in these situations, I truly believe that Kavanaugh wouldn't remember the incidences. They probably weren't important events in his life and could easily have woken up the next morning with no recollection of what happened.