24 [42] The evidence that the plaintiff gave about her voyage of self-discovery is not fairly described as her ‘ipse dixit’ (as the learned judge did) since there is ample corroboration to be found in a comparison between the experiences of the plaintiff and the professionally described sequelae of an abuse victim with a history like that of the plaintiff. What is to be set against her evidence? Counsel referred to the several attempts made by the plaintiff as a child to expose the defendant. He pointed out that by the age of 21 the plaintiff had left home and was making her own way in the world. Whatever threat the defendant had posed was long gone and his influence dissipated. It was unlikely, he submitted, that the plaintiff had remained in ignorance of the facts for nearly thirty years. He relied on the incident during her mother’s illness as leaving no doubt that she not only blamed the defendant for wrecking her life but was also willing to say so openly. Finally he pointed to the plaintiff’s bitter comment to Ms Potgieter that she wished the defendant had done things to her so that she could understand the plaintiff’s feelings. (The evidence as to when this incident took place is unclear but I will assume that it may assist the defendant to discharge the onus.) [43] In the accumulation of such evidence, counsel submitted, the likelihood was to be discovered that the plaintiff was in truth aware of the defendant’s fault and blamed him for the abuse and its disastrous consequences. He did not suggest that the plaintiff consciously concealed the fact that she possessed insight long before 1997. Such a submission would require a credibility finding against her which is not justified by a reading of the record.