When it comes to believing a story, anyone’s story, there has to be a certain amount of logic to it. And for E. Jean Carroll, people are starting to question that logic.

If you remember, E. Jean Carroll is the woman who accused former President Donald Trump of raping her back in the 1990s at a New York department store. When she finally came out with her story in 2019, a full three decades after it supposedly happened, she had all the makings of a good case, or at least a way to dirty the Trump name and possibly make him lose the 2020 election.

But as time and the court battle have dragged on, some of those facts and claims aren’t looking so likely now.

Sure, a jury in Manhattan just awarded her $5 million for defamation about the case since Trump has vehemently denied it from the get-go.

But that isn’t saying much, particularly noting where the jury was located. Besides, you’d think Carroll and her attorneys would simply take the win and deposit the $5 million post haste. Trump didn’t win in 2020; they won their case and got a major payday.

Now, of course, Trump has unsurprisingly filed for an appeal. So the whole thing would be a bit longer going, anyway. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

What might be surprising is that none of that is enough for Carroll. Instead of letting things go, Carroll and attorney Robbie Kaplan have promised to seek further legal action against Trump by another route. Little do they know this just offers more skepticism of her story.

Naturally, Carroll and Kaplan have gone to mainstream media for backing. They even recently appeared on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” to purport their account.

The problem with this, however, is that, unlike an undeniably biased Manhattan jury, the American people won’t buy what she’s selling so easily.

For starters, there are the several social media posts she’s made over the years, seemingly praising Trump – not his politics, of course. In one 2012 post, she claimed she was a “massive” fan of Trump’s reality show “The Apprentice.” In another post later that same year, she asked a question about being willing to have sex with Trump.

“Would you have sex with Donald Trump for $17,000? Even if you could A) Give the money to Charity? B) Close your eyes? And he’s not allowed to speak?.”

Tell me, does that sound like a woman who’s been raped by this man?

I mean, what kind of victim, particularly a rape victim, goes on social media and poses questions about having sex (consensually) with the man who supposedly committed a violent and personal act against her?

Sure, it’d been a few years since the supposed rape. But I think even after a decade; I would still shudder a bit at his name, image, and even the thought of him. And yet, she not only watches his show, calling it “witty,” but ponders having sex with him.

Of course, these posts were brought up in the trial. But again, it took place in Manhattan, where just about everyone within a stone’s throw claims to hate Trump and everything he stands for.

It’s also been noted that it took a mere three hours for that Manhattan jury to deliberate on the verdict. To any reasonable person, this makes it seem as though the jury already knew what they would decide long before it was time to do so. It probably only took them three hours to determine the sentence details.

Also to consider is that this case, which took place in civil court, doesn’t really have the standard of proof that requires evidence to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead, it merely must give a “preponderance of evidence” or a likelihood that it could happen.

Carroll also just happened to be selling a book the year she made the accusation as part of the #MeToo movement.

In any case, reasonable doubt is accruing for Carroll’s story. And the longer she drags this on, the more there will likely be.