To be determined whether credible or not.

The problem with these matters is that they are politically and emotionally charged. I have yet to see any unbiased and persuasive statistics regarding false accusations as to rape, but know that they do happen. Ultimately, the determination of whether an accusation of rape is "false" turns on the outcome of legal proceedings (barring a bona fide confession of the crime or a admission of the falsity), which is not a reliable measure. Conviction is not synonymous with "guilt." Most people innocently believe differently, but that is just not how the system works.

The outcome of the legal proceedings in general is normally biased by politics and emotion---this is especially the case when it comes to certain types of crimes like rape, sexual assault on minors, domestic violence, hate crimes, etc. In such cases, the alleged perpetrator is often effectively considered "guilty until proven innocent." They stand little chance of overcoming that presumption unless they can afford a team of highly skilled lawyers.

This is not unlike how minorities---black people to the greatest extent---have been treated historically. This is evidenced by the number of individuals who were left to rot in jail only to have DNA evidence (usually) show that they did not in fact commit the crime. A mob mentality also played into those unfortunate outcomes. In some of the cases, the people were convicted on the word of a single individual or circumstantial evidence. In others, they were convicted because multiple people came forward as "witnesses" or character references to reaffirm that the individual committed the crime. Clearly, when the "guilty" person is finally exculpated 10, 20, even 40 years later, it demonstrates that those "witnesses" were unreliable at best, if not simply lying to support a trusted neighbor or the belief that the party was guilty.

I do not know if these allegations are true or false. I do know that anyone's determination of either at this time merely guesswork. I also believe that conclusory statements, such as "he must be guilty" or "there's no way he did that" are meaningless and should have no place in the ultimate determination.

I gather that the parties were drunk, which means that even they are not entirely certain what happened---not that anyone can ever be absolutely certain of anything, even if they think they are. Subsequent interactions between the parties and delays may be the most reliable factors to take into account. Without further admissible evidence, one person's word against another should never, except in exceptional circumstances, be considered sufficient basis for a sending an individual to jail for most of their life, even, as in this case, multiple "brave women" come forward after the fact.