Ms Segal makes some good points (let's have women interview women, in a "friendlier" setting. Why not?)

However, I'd love the opportunity to face her in a courtroom, and attack flawed logic such as, "The process as it stands now most often breaks down ... at the police station. Any damage done here inevitably leads to a bad experience in the courtroom for victims."

Really? Invariably?  How so? When a charge is brought and the case goes to court, isn't that a VINDICATION of what happened in the police station? She was believed; there was enough evidence to proceed--no "unfounded," here! 

Court often IS an extremely bad experience--but police have little to do with that.  Lawyers such as Ms. Segal are largely responsible for that. 

The experience can be bad for the PLAINTIFF.  That's the term to use, not "victim."  We don't know until the end if the Plaintiff is a victim.  The victim may be ... the DEFENDANT. Especially if his lawyer isn't as compelling as Ms. Segal...