Her statement is vague enough so it can never be tested.
Karl Popper would call it an unverifiable assumption.
You can take it or leave it as it stands.
It is difficult for one to maintain such a finely tuned story once one is being questioned under oath. The letter was very carefully crafted, but testimony is messy.
The Senators will be asking a bunch of inconvenient questions about when, where, who and how. If she gives answers to any of those questions, she is providing details that can be proven false.
If I were her lawyer, I would insist that she will only appear before the committee to read her letter, and not answer any questions.
Heck, even is what she says is true (which I do not believe), after decades have passed, the chance of her getting some detail wrong is very high. A lawyer would have to be a fool to expose her client to questioning in a situation like this.