The Oggi article makes the insinuation that because Nara has spent time in a mental hospital she is unreliable It doesnt say why she was in the hospital when she was in the hospital or offer any explanation for how that might affect her ability to testify just that because she was in a hospital she surely cant be reliable If youre willing to accept a blanket statement that ANY reason someone would be in a mental hospital makes them unreliable and that ANY time they have been in the hospital counts since say  years ago makes a difference today go for it I think its a pretty low shot but if thats the standard wanted for this article  that any insinuation in a reliable source goes no matter how shady or poorly defined then go for it I think it lowers the overall quality of the article to stoop to such additions If it materially affects the case then its going to be made by the defense and at some point that will be in a solid source Until then I think such material shouldnt be in the article