I fail to understand the reasoning you advance for “not believing” this lady and her account of an appalling, evil act with traumatic and continually painful consequences for her.
What, precisely, is it about the history that the author describes which is “barely believable”? Is that an assessment you base on, what — perhaps your own professional involvement in assisting victims of sexual assault? Or some other relevant vocation?
The other justification you advance for rejecting this lady’s credibility is your claim that her account is “full of mistakes”. I don’t know what it is that you regard as being “mistaken” and there is, I suspect, little to be gained by you itemising them. But if they are, say, grammatical or syntactical mistakes (on your assessment) how does that make the account less believable?
Your own response contains, for example, two spelling errors and a punctuation error in its second sentence. The syntax of your first sentence is perhaps a little inelegant. I’m not criticising you for that, but the critical point is, surely, do THOSE errors impact on the integrity of the point YOU are making?
On the other hand if the mistakes that you perceive the account to be “full of” are more substantive in nature (i.e. errors which directly relate to the content of the account) again, are you necessarily equipped to make a judgment of that kind? (And a dogmatically expressed judgment - subject perhaps to the qualification you seem to be expressing in your second sentence - at that.)