Notes:

The usual way this works is a constant shifting of the goalposts. Testimony is a form of evidence, but if someone comes forward, it's immediately dismissed as "lies". If those testimonies and/or details are corroborated by others, then it's dismissed as a conspiracy to defame the accused. If photos are offered showing behavior consistent with the accusations, then they're immediately dismissed as being taken "out of context" or "misrepresented". Does every victim need to have crystal-clear 4k video footage of the incidents they've experienced? Would that be enough? Or would that be similarly dismissed as well as being "suspiciously convenient"? Because it seems the level of proof required is completely malleable, almost like the entire purpose of these demands is the protection of the accused abuser.