right ... to pose questions of credibility as in an ordinary trial, but only to offer evidence which explains or clarifies that proof.” Eain, 641 F.2d at 511; see Austin v. Healey, 5 F.3d 598, 605 (2d Cir.1993) (stating that respondent’s challenge to “the reliability and credibility of the evidence is misdirected”); In re Extradition of Mainero, 990 F.Supp. 1208, 1218 (S.D.Cal.1997) (“Evidence that conflicts with that submitted on behalf of the demanding party is not permitted, nor is impeachment of the credibility of the demanding country’s witnesses.”); United States v. Peterka, 307 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1349 (M.D.Fla.2003) (at extradition hearing, “the court shall exclude evidence that is proffered to ... challenge the credibility of witnesses”); Rodriguez Ortiz, 444 F.Supp.2d at 891-93 (<HOLDING>); In re Extradition of Solis, 402 F.Supp.2d
holding that testimony of sixyearold vietim was not incredibly dubious despite some inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies are appropriate to the cireumstances presented the age of the witness and the passage of time between the incident and the time of her statements and testimony holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue holding that trier of fact may believe one witness disbelieve others and resolve inconsistencies in the testimony of any witness holding that jurors may consider inconsistencies and deficiencies in testimony when assessing witness credibility holding that the issue of inconsistencies in witness statements are properly reserved for the eventual trial in mexico