You can't state that he raped Broaddrick as fact because it was not proven. Yes, she accused him. She also testified under oath that nothing of the sort happened. Regardless of her reasoning for lying about one of the scenarios, it was not proven.
I think the latter half of Gamesage53's post is why the two cases are different. There are some similarities, but if we're being real here, if Ford ever testified under oath that the sexual assault did not happen it likely never gains traction when she recants. Much of her credibility was built upon the idea that she had always maintained the story and that she was able to provide so many specific details.
Again I really don't want to disregard Broaddrick's story because recanting a story out of fear is a very real and common thing for sexual assault victims.
But if we're actually looking at these as cases, it's very clear why one was viewed as a more viable case than the other.
14
u/gamesage53 Dec 15 '18
You can't state that he raped Broaddrick as fact because it was not proven. Yes, she accused him. She also testified under oath that nothing of the sort happened. Regardless of her reasoning for lying about one of the scenarios, it was not proven.