Well, from what I've been able to follow in all this:
Peds in CA have the right of way at interstections.....and all intersections have an understood crosswalk....so there doesn't have to be a painted one there.
She was in the crosswalk.....why?
Maybe she thought the OP was slowing down for her to cross which is essentially what the OP stated in the first post.....
The intersection has 2 dips for surface water drainage. One has to slow down to go past that (my 2000 ford focus has soft suspension due to the age/miles).
So, the OP was slowing down and quite possibly giving the impression he'd seen the ped and was implying that he was indeed yielding right of way, as he should have done anyway, to the ped.
So, OP will lose and the ped will win.....how much depends upon how badly the OP pisses off the judge or jury......trials can either be by jury or by judge, up to the prosecution to decide, by his science defense, which may indeed piss off a judge just enough to slam him.
A long, drawn out science argument, though, will probably bore a jury to tears and just go in one ear and out the other....esp. after hearing the salient facts of the case....OP didn't see ped in crosswalk and hit her along with almost hitting her child.