Does somebody who knows about the current legal situation know the answer to this? These days, all False Accuser statements are, I assume, video taped. Surely if someone like crooked Danny Day (the guy who falsely accused retired fireman David Bryant of rape) was seen in the original video by the jury, they would have spotted him as a liar? We know police are told "they must be believed" and come up with rubbish like "you are not at fault" even if the false accuser is clearly after money but the camera must reveal licked lips, constant sips of water, shifty eyes, contrasts when they have to slip into the fantasy compared to the truth. Police obviously notice this but are instructed only to get convictions and not the truth. But a jury, seeing those taped interviews before the liars have had professional instruction and time to rehearse, would see straight through the lies. Are they shown these tapes during trials? The contrast between the original shifty lies and the later groomed slick show would be revealing, to say the least.

"As the best researchers can tell, and in my own experience as an FBI Special Agent (now retired), detecting deception is very difficult. Every study conducted since 1986, when the famed researcher Paul Ekman first wrote about this, has demonstrated that we humans are no better than chance at detecting deception (Ekman & O'Sullivan 1991, 913-920; Granhag & Strömwall, 2004, 169; Mann & Vrij 2004). That means that if you toss a coin in the air you will be as likely to detect deception as the truth. And while it is true that a very few people are better at detecting deception than others, they are barely above chance. In fact, those that are really good are only correct somewhere around 60% of the time; that means that 40% of the time they are wrong and you would not like them sitting on a jury judging you."
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/...-about-lie-detection

When an accuser has apparently been taken seriously by police, CPS, victim support, charities, therapists, doctors, lawyers, barristers, etc. before finally reaching the formal surroundings of a court room to tell their story under oath, it might be natural for a jury also to take them seriously.

Yes I do think it's not the jury's fault; many times the witnesses are very convincing having been groomed and trained by helpful police. Indeed there is an entire industry of professionals grooming witnesses (on both sides). So the eventual presentation is far more convincing and slick than the first fumbling claims. That's why I think jurors must be shown the initial videos; they can spot the liars before they are trained out of it.