The “Was [Louis] there in 18th century Auvergne?” just adds to the point that the train scene very strongly most likely definitely happened. Because Lestat did stutter as a child (which even still affects his speech now ex: 208 reunion & 301 gabistat), but rather than giving a clear yes or no, he sidesteps both answers. He takes Daniel’s question and reframes it as something he can say is objectively not true without actually telling a lie.
So similarly, no, he didn’t threaten Claudia with rape on the train. What Claudia actually said was that he mocked the rape she experienced and threatened to turn her bones into dust. Lestat avoids harsh truths by hiding them behind different, less painful ones.
And the Don Pasquale bit was so he can hamper down on something that actually is true to give more credit to his overall argument. That’s why it’s the only part he expands on. Daniel sees through this immediately & keeps asking the same questions over and over again to try to trip up Lestat in all his sidestepping and reveal something honest.
There’s just so much more support towards the train scene happening if not exactly than at least very close to how Claudia described it vs the single piece of evidence for the opposite which is Lestat saying it’s not true and that’s literally it.
