So you have some actual evidence to back up an alternative interpretation of Ken's own words and his directly observed prior actions?

Or are you just working on gut feeling here?

Think hard about which one is the rational approach, using self-supplied evidence and directly observed behavior in assessing someone's character or going with blind faith because he sure SEEMS like an okay enough guy so maybe he might possibly not have been remembering things properly and we should really just give him the benefit of the doubt about an identity he's explicitly claimed for himself as an abuser for no particular reason other than...what? DWRP 'hysteria?'

Keep on fucking that chicken, pseudo-rationalist anon.