My stance has consistently been shaped by the following axioms:
- Going forward is hard.
- Going forward in public is exponentially harder.
- Statistically, false reports are incredibly rare.
- The criminal justice system, while necessary, is nevertheless hell for victims -- no one reports a sexual assault "for fun."
- In some cases, there are prima facie reasons that impact the credibility of the victim or the accuser.
In other words, that's the "contradictory evidence" you mentioned. For instance, let's use Weinstein as an example: his pattern of conduct is well-known, and so if another female actress accused him, her credibility is boosted. I don't really want to make up converse examples, so I'll use my Soldier-in-Afghanistan consensual sex turned rape accusation. While an investigation was conducted, the eventual results weren't surprising: the motive to fabricate was plausible on its face, as was her being afraid of getting in trouble, and I think it was all resolved within days? It's been a while.
For public figures, I believe we're on the same page, or nearly so.
As far as this particular case? Additional, amplifying facts are likely going to be discovered through investigation because of the situation's newsworthiness. However, taking into consideration the axioms I mentioned above, nothing that's been presently reported that would or should impact her credibility.
