For the purposes of this case, the standard of evidence for the three types of sexual assault the judge had in the jury instructions is preponderance (so, a lower standard that for defamation).
Say she alleged that Trump sexually assaulted her (in the way the jury agreed) and also that he picked his nose.
And she testified in a compelling manner that he picked his nose. And she told her friend about it. And her friend testified that she was told about it. Etc.
What I’m saying is it seems odd for the jury to decide I trust you enough to agree you were sexually assaulted, I find that credible, yet I don’t trust you that he picked his nose.
I would think it’s either both or neither.
Assuming that is indeed a reasonable assumption, so a typical person would be puzzled, the explanation is either that the jury did something weird, or I misunderstand the issue.
One way I could misunderstand is if the jury charge was such that the factual determination they needed to make wasn’t a matter of accepting the witness testimony but rather something else. So maybe you’d believe that the plaintiff believed the rape happened, but you would nonetheless not think it’s more likely true than not because somehow an expert convinced you that people like the plaintiff are often wrong about what actually happened.
Or something like that. My point is, did the jury not trust her on the key claimed most egregious violation of her person, but they trusted her on other matters? Or was something else involved?