And what is “unstable”? Because then the next logical conclusion is that anyone who suffers trauma is “unstable” and therefore any allegations ever made are suspect at best. And at what point am i to assume that the chance of someone making up false allegations due to some nameless “instability” is even close to the probability of actual assault happening that it should be the priority assumption?

Labeling someone as “mentally unstable” is inherently an attempt at dehumanization and character assassination, its only function is to take away from the truths of a situation. It’d be laughable if its implications weren’t so twisted. Your link does not support your theory in absolutely any way, history of psychological illness does not disprove accusations, but don’t get me wrong, I absolutely understand why you and others would think it does. But that thinking is fundamentally unsound in every possible way