I've no idea but there have been many, many cases reported where they were "historical" and for which the only "evidence" was the word of accusers.

I want to make it quite clear that I think that in all probability some of the accused were guilty, what my point is is that the word of someone isn't evidence and just the word of someone isn't accepted in other types of cases.

That being so, it lays people open to being falsely accused of crimes and publicly identified. There has to be a more rigid determination of what is and what isn't evidence.