The prosecutor looked genuinely upset the way this is seemingly being handled... she credited her on her knowledge of psychology and the chemical reactions... this prosecutor's focus area is interviewing sexual assault survivors in particular and she asked if anyone offered her another option. And said that the best option really, was for her to have seen a forensics expert, been allowed to talk most of the time and tell her story as she recalls... I think she called it something like a cognitive interview... but that would seem more pleasant than sitting in that room with all these blood-thirsty politicians looking to get hit points...
I do think she is telling the truth and as she remembers it is how she remembers it, but her memory is not the most trustworthy.. and equally so, my stomach churns at the idea of convicting someone on the basis of "convincing" testimony versus evidence... it does go against what we would normally call a fair system... if they dropped him, it wouldn't be the worst thing, but kind of unimaginable if she is remembering these details and it ends up being the wrong person... so many different details about both people coming out, from people uninvolved and not, and some self-contradictions... she does seem very easily flustered, personality-wise... couldn't remember fairly recent details which I know at least I would remember ... in a way, it makes it more convincing, because we could see in her person where it becomes a jumbled mess for her with high stress levels... but on the other hand, it could be said to be very convenient given the line of questioning she was asked... but understandable she wouldn't have known (or cared) the more sordid details about some of the pro-bono stuff, imo...
I like how they got mad though, "This isn't supposed to be a trial!"... yet they're demanding an FBI investigation.
November will be very interesting to see how the public reacts to this and all the other shenanigans that have been going on thanks to our wonderful Congress since 2016...