Ok rape often has no witnesses or rock solid evidence as to whether there was consent or not. Or whether there even was sex, if the accusation doesn't come quickly after the supposed event. Which it often doesn't. However I think people underestimate the ability of policemen and women, with all their training and experience, to ascertain whether a rape accusation is likely to be true or not. Probably a lot of the time they are a mixture. CCTV, texts, eyewitnesses of how the accuser was acting with the acused before they lost sight of them, analysing the accuser's testimony, questioning, looking at the history of accuser and accused and so on. There are retired cops on this forum, although idk if any of them dealt with rapes.
I love and respect women and always believe them except in the rare case they are proven to be fibbing. However just to play Devil's Advocate, is it possible that the exceptionally low conversion rate of rape accusations to convictions is because a lot of the accusations are false? And the high conviction rate when a case goes to court, is because they only send cases to court in the unusual event there is solid evidence?