I went and read the article from the LA Times. Is that the one you meant? Believing women doesn’t mean throwing people into jail just on their say so. It doesn’t mean presuming guilt; it does however mean presuming that you ought to treat the allegation seriously because there’s a pretty good chance it is not a fabrication. It means bothering to do a complete investigation, which is not the system we currently have. Tens of thousands of rape kits sit on shelves, decades old and never processed. Then there’s the matter of putting the women on trial, “What were you wearing? Why did you go to that party? etc.” So many women don’t come forward right away because of the likely chance they will be revictimized if they do. That’s what believing women means!
Go read the Amber Wyatt case that was published recently in The Washington Post (I linked it a while back). She immediately told people at the party about her rape. She went to the police the next day and they found physical trauma consistent with rape as well as the semen of one of her attackers. What happened next? Nothing except that she got branded a liar and a whore and essentially run out of town.
In the Kavanaugh case there was certainly not enough evidence to send him to jail, but her testimony was consistent with what a trauma victim who is telling the truth might say. His testimony was full of outright lies, evasion, attacks on those questioning him and misdirection. Again, that’s not enough to send him to jail, but it is enough to make an educated assumption that he is not fit to have a life time appointment to the highest court in the land.