She's had a dog in the fight, child custody, so she had a motive to lie.
It was he said/she said case and we've only heard the accusers side of the story. But we do know that she persued a charge of rape but the accused was not convicted of the charge.
She doesn't ever name her alleged rapist in her highly publicized articles. Why not? Is she afraid of losing a civil suit for slander?
In her open letter to Congressman Akin, just before she threatens to "fight to extinguish your inflammatory statements" she makes this snide remark...
"After all, why pass a law restricting the parental rights of men who father through rape when too many legislators argue (without any reliance on science, fact, or experience) that “legitimately raped” woman never would decide to raise a child from that crime? Why pass a law when raped women cannot get pregnant from their rapes?"
And of course that's ridiculous. No legislators are arguing that women who are raped would never decide to raise the child and none are arguing that women cannot get pregnant from their rapes. Akin certainly never said that, implied that, or insinuated that in any way shape or form.
So she's not being truthful when she tries to misrepresent what Akin said in his allegedly "inflammitory statement" that she is expressing so much faux outrage about. That tells me that she has no moral compunction against lying to get what she wants. It says something about her character and credibility.
She exhudes the primary trait of a dishonest person. That is, she is willing to lie and decieve to get what she wants. Therefore in my judgement that gives me serious doubts about her credibility. And in a purely he said/she said case credibility means everything.
That's why I am very skeptical of her claim that she was raped.