Re: Not victim blaming, oh no.
You see, in modern society we have to PROVE someone is guilty. If two girls (who don't know each other) tell the same story about a guy we have a strong evidence. If the victim has mails, chats, pictures or witnesses (unbiased or even better unbeknownst to the victim) that's strong evidence.
f course it can be frustrating if bad people get away with doing bad stuff, but if we can't prove anything we cannot automatically assume somone's guilty only because one person says so. Yes, that can be terribly frustrating sometimes, but that's how our society works. If I accuse someone I have the burden of proof, not the other way around.
"Victim blaming" is something completely different. The first difference is that in victim blaming we have a victim in the first place. It sounds something like this: "Yeah she got harassed, but it's her fault for wearing a short skirt." You see the difference between this and "She claimed she was harassed, but she has no evidence."?
The second difference is that victim blaming tries so discredit the victim. Something like this: "She is totally nuts, we can't believe her." This is another difference, because society says: "Yes, I want to believe her, but unless she has some sort of evidence this is yet unproven."
As for your question why someone would do this: People (men and women alike) do all kind of crazy stuff. Or do you assume all women are good people? For many college teachers (especially in sports) there is this rule to never be alone with a girl under any circumstances. And this is first and foremost to protect the teacher, because there were many cases were girls claimed they were harassed, the teacher was fired and later it turned out that is was a false accusation. The problematic part is you don't even have to prove anything, you can totally ruin careers only by the loss of reputation that comes with such accusations. That's why we must stop whisper campaigns, in the long run they do more damage than good.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
