(and before that, in England, our legal ancestor).This is not new.It’s how trials work: the victim gets on the stand and says what happened and, if he or she knows, who did it.If the victim can’t offer any identifying info — say, she was knocked unconscious at the time or something — then the prosecution will put on whatever evidence it has.What might that be?A witness or security camera who saw the guy doing it or sneaking out right afterward, an accomplice who turned state’s evidence, a police investigator testifying about fingerprints or hair or whatever found at the scene, or these days, a laboratory person who tested for a DNA match if there was anything testable at the scene, or an expert testifying that the defendant’s cell phone records show he was there, etc.If I were a prosecutor on the Kavanaugh case, I would’ve used, among other things, Kavanaugh’s own 1983 calendar.I’ll let Newsweek explain why: “Ford alleged that the attack took place at a small gathering at someone’s house that summer, and identified Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and P.J.Smyth as being in attendance.” (NOTE: She said that BEFORE seeing any of his calendars.Back to Newsweek:) “Kavanaugh’s own calendar entry from July 1 shows that he went to a type of gathering that had been described by Ford, and was accompanied by two of the men she said were key witnesses to what really happened that night,” namely Mark Judge and P.J.Smyth.https://www.newsweek.com/senators-argue-kavanaugh-calendar-corroborating-evidence-ford-testimony-1144539And then if you’re the defense lawyer, you might or might not advise the defendan