Under normal circumstances I’d agree with you, however under normal circumstances the prosecution would have presented the evidence in court in a trial. The general public would not have had access to this evidence to draw their own conclusions and we could rely on the justice system to determine whether the alleged perpetrator was guilty or not.
These are not normal circumstances, however. A lot of evidence for the first of three allegations was published publicly. Yes, text conversations/images can be doctored, however the way the victim was presenting the conversation by scrolling through her phone would have made this a lot more difficult to achieve. More than likely the exchange was genuine.
And why was the evidence published online? Because the victim tried to achieve justice in her own way as the case fell through due to a technicality, not through lack of evidence or perjury. The U.K. law failed to protect her.
So at least in the first case, if a judge must decide whether he is guilty or not then we will be waiting a very long time as it is not going to court.
Honestly I think if she was lying about the whole thing then we would have seen some sort of public refutation of these allegations. Instead there is a super-injunction which says it all really.