A key point is that she has not made any accusation under oath. If we are to give her story any credence at all, she needs to make out a sworn complaint.
We also need to have the therapists notes entered into evidence if people are going to rely on them. We have yet to get any explanation of how she happened to recall 30 year old events during therapy, events which she forgot for two decades. There is a distinct possibility she embellished and exaggerated and mixed together different incidents with different people at the insistence of her therapist who wanted her to go back into her past and remember the presumed awful incident that was the ultimate cause of her marital problems.
The standard is that the accusation must be sworn, that her testimony be subject to cross examination, that it be specific enough as to date and location as to be potentially disprovable, and that there be some contemporaneous supporting evidence or corroborating witnesses. Absent that, it is not enough to meet even the minimal standard required to disqualify someone from serving on the court. Even supermarket tabloids would think twice about running with something this thin.