...? In my comment I literally said that she did it when he became famous.

The testimony of the accusers is not evidence, it can be evidence. To be so, it must be supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence to convince the courts.

It is true that reporting old cases is difficult, but it is often done successfully, and is the only way to obtain true justice. That someone is willing to go through the pain of public exposure but won't even try it in court doesn't prove anything, but it is very suspicious.
Especially if doing so publicly not only fails to state evidence or claim to have evidence, but doesn't even make the accusations explicit; it looks like an attempt to avoid being sued.

It is not that I wish to discredit her pseudo-statements, but it is important that people understand how little there is, because every time his name appears on the internet there is a tough campaign of harassment by people who just parrot it.