Not to diminish what is going on but at this point all we have is heresy, we don't know what actually happened. She could have been drunk enough that she thought it happened when it didn't (knew a few people like that, men and women in college), or she could have a history of making accusations (rape or not). It is also equally likely that something did happen to her and that her accusations are accurate and something should be done (prosecution). At this point we must wait until at least a judge has heard the case and if there is any kind of prosecution going forward. Only then can we even begin to form any kind of cogent opinion on the matter given all the variables and unanswered questions.
Personally I do it for every case. I see it happen for murder trials, sexual abuse cases, everything in the media where the presumption is that the person is guilty and it's just a question of how much. Right now what's been reported does look fairly damning but the evidence itself hasn't been shown to the public or a jury yet. The only way for someone to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is to be skeptical of everything.
It's not a question of guilty/innocent; it's the question of "well she was so drunk she got kicked out of the bar, so how could it have been rape" being _absolute bullshit_.
First: I'm always skeptical. I fear how easily it would be to be marked with a scarlet letter. I rather 10 guilty men go free, for any crime of any magnitude, than have 1 innocent man be punished.
Second:
Murder yields a body.
Theft creates a void.
Vandalism leaves a mark.
The body left by rape cannot distinguish between regret and terror. The void cannot be measured by the outside. The mark may be an act of theater.
However, the public demands justice and often we lose sight of our principles. The court of public opinion cares not about a shadow of a doubt.