This may all boil down to whether Kav's denials - that while he may have drank "too much" on occasion, he didn't have a drinking problem and never blacked out - are acceptable in the context of the he said/she said narrative. It is entirely plausible to me that - too much alcohol or otherwise - I wouldn't remember a specific party from 36 years ago where nothing remarkable, from my perspective, occurred, while another person at that same party would have remembered salient details perfectly - if, for example, she remembered being attacked. And that if she remembered those details, she may well have forgotten others, such as the time, place, and how she got to and from the party. Particularly suspicious is her precise recollection of certain extraneous details, such as who else was at the party and that she claimed to have had only one beer.
I continue to believe that Kav would have been better served by testifying, truthfully, that he remembered nothing of the alleged incident, and to exhibit tactical contrition that if he indeed behaved badly that he was sorry for it, and had grown to become a responsible, respectful adult.
