It is a shame that authentic Jewish law (Halacha) is not the norm in Eretz Yisrael. If this were the case, at least two witnesses would be required to present evidence to support allegations made against a person. This would be done in front of a panel of judges, behind closed doors, where the accuser's identity is fully revealed.
Unlike secular law, Jewish law's primary goal is to protect the reputation of a person so that if accusers want to make accusations, they must be done in front of a panel of judges, not in the public domain. This prevents the type of lashon hora on a national level that has taken place in former President Moshe Katsav's case. In Jewish law - unlike in secular law - bogus claims and false allegations are not allowed to destroy a man's name and reputation. The secular Israeli court system has no such protections for those who are falsely accused. 
This prevents the type of lashon hora on a national level that has taken place in former President Moshe Katsav's case.
In a Beit Din (a Halachic court), allegations and claims against someone must be presented in person directly to the judges, in front of the accused. There is no such thing as an accuser - of any crime - being able to conceal his or her identity. Two witnesses would be required to justify the allegation. The concept of "your word against his word" is not valid in such a court. Unlike in the secular legal system, where allegations can be made against anyone for anything, and then investigated, Jewish law requires two witnesses to validate the claim, let alone decide whether the accused is guilty or not. This prevents false claims and allegations from harming an innocent person's reputation and good standing in the community. Unlike Israeli secular law, Jewish law protects the innocent against the vulgarities of the masses.
Minus the media manipulation, here are the basic facts of the Katsav case:
1) Katsav himself went to the Attorney General and told him he was being blackmailed by "A". Why would he do that, unless he knew she was preparing to come out publicly with charges of rape against him? Was she?
2) No physical evidence can exist for rape after such a long period of time has passed. The entire case will be based on her word against his. So just what did the State Prosecutor have other than her word that will be used in the case against him?
3) If he committed these acts in the past, then why did all these women, in addition to "A", suddenly come together at the same time to make the accusation - years after the supposed act? Why was only A's case taken seriously by the State Prosecutor? Why is she being allowed to keep her identity a secret? Is she being supported by any "women's rights organization"?
4) If Katsav needed sexual satisfaction, why didn't he just take a day trip to any European capital? Are we being asked to believe that he simply "can't control himself" when it comes to these things? He is 62 years old and not of a large physical build. Are we to believe he forced this woman to perform a sexual act and she couldn't kick him in the groin, scratch at his eyes, or take her hands and bop him hard on both ears?
5) Did Katsav really set out to "dominate" women half his age by threatening to dismiss her if she refused? If so, why did she not file a complaint with the civil service that she paid dues to?
The type of person described by the allegations sounds like a monster. Katsav hardly fits that bill, with his meek manner, age, small physical status and very quiet demeanor.
The entire "official story" makes no sense.