not sure why is it so difficult? if RK says the WP trio asked her to lie all the way and take it to the grave...she has to provide evidence this conversation happened or describe in details where and when exactly the conversation happened. Also, why would the WP asked her to do that? Without evidence to back it up, why did the committee take her words for it and use it as a hypothetical scenario to question the evidences provided by the trio who have also made the oath. It will be thrown out of court immediately as no case. The benefit of doubt should be given to the trio since RK has admitted she lied in the first place. They should question RK how she can substantiate her accusation and if she can't, what's the reason that they are trying so hard to test the evidence of the trio and not instead trying as hard to test the evidence of RK?