As an aside, it's fascinating that when you say "I don't know personally anybody who is a murderer" most people are perfectly fine with such a statement. Obviously there are murderers out there, but they are few. The statement is most likely true, as most people simply don't know any murderers. But when you say that you don't know anybody who would rape, the public reception to such a statement changes.
Using murder as an analogue for rape is a great way to see the kind of special treatment the crime of rape gets in the justice system.
It's not a stretch to say murder is as bad if not worse than rape (worse imo), but the two are tried differently. The prosecutor of a criminal case has to satisfy the burden of proof to get a conviction. There are 3 ways to satisfy the burden of proof:
If a murder case was based solely on a he said/she said claim then it would be extremely difficult to meet even the preponderance of evidence standard. Now look at rape cases which are almost exclusively he said/she said cases. What happens is the burden of proof is somehow satisfied even though the claim lacks anything beyond an accusation. My only explanation to this phenomenon is that men are so likely to rape women when given the opportunity that it's more than 50% likely that Billy must have had unconsensual relations with Sally when they went home together last Saturday.
Could you imagine if murder trials were held this way? You could off that one guy you hate, claim the other guy you hate did it (notice how it's guys and not girls), and kill two birds with one stone. No need to deal with the pesky truth, but I digress.
TL;DR:He said/she said claims are really just accusations which don't, by nature, fulfill the burden of proof for murder, but are adequate for the "burden of proof" for Rape.