The grim "lessons" I have drawn from this case include: If you are a victim, and you want to be believed, you must take care not to develop a mental illness (either incidentally, or, as is sometimes the case, partly as the result of post-traumatic symptoms). https://twitter.com/THEMONTHLY/status/1391549342134136832

If you are a victim, and you want to be believed, you must remember every detail of the attack perfectly, even decades later.

If you are a victim, and you want to be believed, you must understand the attack perfectly from the outset, and never in any way minimise or rationalise your attacker’s behaviour.

If you want to be believed, you must take care not to have your story deviate from a “standard story” (a concept developed by @audreyseokhean) in any way, or to contain even superficially surprising elements.

If you are a victim, and you want to be believed, you must be so damaged by the attack as to never spend time with the alleged perpetrator again.

If you are a victim, and you want to be believed, you must be totally undamaged (i.e., not troubled or mentally ill in any way) and, indeed, perfect.

On this scheme, we will not be believing many victims. And that is not an accident. Such pointed questions, selective doubts, myths, double standards and double binds effectively work to keep victims silent, and to protect powerful men from the consequences of their actions.