In cross-examining the accuser, the defense starts from the position that she is not to be believed, and then it pokes as many holes in her credibility as it possibly can. Cracks and flaws are stacked up and presented to the jury in an attempt to create a critical mass that's big enough to be called reasonable doubt. The difference, the woman shot back, is that she didn't start the rumor, only repeated it. Boyle was careful not to attack the woman in front of the jury, but at this moment he was strongly suggesting she is a liar, that she made up a story about being raped because she didn't like Chmura. Questions like this needed to be asked, but they had to cut deeply if she's telling the truth.
Rape hurts, and the pursuit of justice can tear open the wounds.
But this woman refused to be rattled by Boyle. She sounded irritated by many of his questions, but never lost her cool. She forcefully denied discrepancies he raised. And when he wanted to know if her family had hired Robert Habush to represent her in possible civil action against Chmura, she corrected his pronunciation of the lawyer's name. It was a long time ago.