Ford vs. Tyson

No, not a boxing match from the 1980s (I don't see that Mike Tyson ever fought anyone with that name), but rather a comparison of the sexual assault allegations of Christine Blasey Ford vs. that of Vanessa Tyson.


Things that are the same include one place of work (Stanford University), political implications, and even the legal firm handling both clients.  That last bit does raise the question of whether they're simply good at what they do, or whether they're driven.  But that noted, there are some huge differences in the stories that push Tyson's story much closer to "enough evidence to arrest" or "enough evidence to indict".  Let's list them.

• Tyson is accusing a fellow Democrat.  There is no obvious political "hit" to be had here.
• Tyson is not waiting for an opportune time for a political "hit", and is not working with Dianne Feinstein Nifong.
• Tyson's story is partially corroborated by the accused, who admits some sex act took place.
• Tyson has named time, year, setting, and place of the crime.
• Tyson has not named witnesses who denied ever seeing such a thing.
• Tyson has not conducted an inadmissible polygraph exam, then refused to provide the records of that exam.  Nor has she referred to therapy records and then refused to provide them to investigators.
• Tyson has not lied about being afraid of flying, or about an extra front door in her home.

Now the cases may become far more similar as things unfold, and quite frankly I'd love to see Tyson file charges in Massachusetts before the statute of limitations expires this year so that the matter can be handled in a real court of law instead of the court of public opinion.  As things stand now, however, I've got far more confidence in Tyson's story than I did in Ford's for these reasons.


The question, then, is whether there is meat to the story, or whether the law firm has simply gotten smarter.  Again, I'd like to see the case in the hands of a Massachusetts prosecutor.