So much is wrong here, but I'll straighten it out.
First, judging is a memory job -- you mostly have to memorize the rulings of previous cases to know how to rule in another case. It's not exactly that you have to be the best and the brightest, but Kavanaugh academically was so this is a non-argument.
Secondly, we have no obligation to trust the accuser especially in the case where no suitable evidence has been provided. That's exactly where I am at. Switching it into a man versus woman issue or whatever narrative is just a distraction for the simple-minded. Both parties involved are capable of lying, so it is proof that settles it. Allegations mean nothing until then... Kavanaugh is a very conservative fellow, and it's likely that he didn't even lose his virginity until he married. I have no idea why someone would find this so hard to believe. Certainly, it's not very common in the under 35 crowd but when I grew up this was extremely common. Dating used to be going out with each other and enjoying each other's company until the man put a ring on it. After that, still no hanky panky until wedding day. Both sexes cherished their virginity as something honorable.
So, the short is, I'll presume Brett Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty like anyone else. Neither this woman, nor anyone else is going to change that. I'm not going to see him as a creep because someone who is clearly aligned with the political opposition is yammering about what appears to be nonsense at the moment. If we entertain crazy, we become it. Evidence, or GTFO.