interview. Before the video was played to the jury, D.J. affirmed the truth of her statements at the CAC and testified, without giving specific details, that appellant had touched her body. It is, of course, well-settled that “[pjrior consistent statements are generally inadmissible to support one’s own unim-peached witness, because mere repetition does not imply veracity.” Battle v. United States, 630 A.2d 211, 215-16 (D.C.1993). Is a refusal to testify about a certain subject inconsistent with a previous statement discussing that topic? There is case law on both sides of the issue. In this jurisdiction, and in many others, a witness’s prior statement is considered inconsistent with her testimony if she evades questions at trial by claiming a loss of memory. See Diggs, 28 A.3d at 594 (<HOLDING>). Several courts have extended this principle,
holding witnesss mental histoiy irrelevant because witnesss present not past memory ability was the only relevant inquiry holding that witnesss prior grand jury testimony was inconsistent with his claimed loss of memory at trial holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statements are admissible even in the event of that witnesss actual or feigned memory loss holding that where defendant sought to exclude evidence prior to trial and again just prior to witnesss testimony at issue it was not necessary for defendant to object to testimony when it was actually put before jury