It's simple. Estrich's rape was 100% clear, 100% believable. No one doubts that she was raped. She called the police right away.
Broaddrick's allegations, however, came more than 20 years after the alleged occurrence happened. They came only after Pres. Clinton was elected a second time. They came to light only during the Paula Jones lawsuit. The only corroboration is hearsay evidence also more than 20 years old - her friends were allegedly told that it happend within a few days of the event. Broaddrick came forward only after the statute of limitations would have lapsed.
Why would a rape victim like Estrich reject Broaddrick's story? Probably because she finds it incredible, and as a rape victim, she knows very well how much rape allegations depend on the credibility of the victim. She is well aware of how much false allegations of rape make it harder for real victims to press their charges.
You seem to be the only person I have ever heard of who was familiar with Estrich's rape. Could you give details?
As I recall, Ms. Broaddrick's contemporaneous statements to her friends and relatives were much closer in time than "a few days" later, and there were also the direct, contemporaneous observations of those people of her physical injuries.
I'm not at all convinced these statements would be excluded as hearsay, and, although I would have to go back and look at the facts more closely, my initial reaction is that these statements would indeed be admissible as evidence against Clinton.