I too don't understand the rationale for this process having taken place in public. All allegations of sexual abuse make third-parties confront a web of trust

I too don't understand the rationale for this process having taken place in public. All allegations of sexual abuse make third-parties confront a web of trust problem. Since the facts are most often not independently verifiable, there is little else for anyone to do than to evaluate who they trust more. These days we are told this is best performed by taking the accuser's statements as-is, and refrain from interactive cross-examination and questioning the accuser's motives and behavior, as having our opinions swayed by such information can be construed as victim blaming, which we'd want to avoid. What I find puzzling is at the same time, we're encouraged to confront the accused, which further perpetuates an information asymmetry. This process is awful for everyone involved, but doubly so for the actual victim, who faces an uphill battle to convince everyone that the abuse indeed took place. In this (and other) cases, the presence of multiple, independent accounts of abuse by the same perpetrator sways a rational actor's trust towards the accusers. The same may not have been true with just one report. By going public, we have all been made third-parties forced to derive our own judgments about who to trust, but we're also not all stakeholders and don't participate in the same social circles as the people involved. Specifically, if a criminal investigation isn't desired, the discourse should take place within the affected social circles, as there is no compelling public interest to know that the alleged abuser is indeed an abuser. If, on the other hand, there is a compelling public interest, the justice system provides a better venue for the public -- us being the new parties to this discourse -- than simply making public statements.