You did not respond to my statement in context. I asked "Are you suggesting that anyone who walks into a police station and makes an accusation has their word accepted at face value with no corroborating evidence, that the prosecutors automatically will accept it -- estimated 99% conviction rate in Russia -- and that the accused will sit back and not say, "S/he's lying" or "S/he misunderstood"?"
Helene states: "n the meantime, the people she accuses in the press of criminal behavior without pursuing criminal charges through the system have the right to point her to the process and to defend themselves against her accusations in any legal way they see fit."
Response: If she is telling the truth, then he does not have to say "she is lying" automatically, as you suggest.
In other words, is the statement of a person who goes to the police about any charge -- not applicable to Womack -- automatically accepted without question, and do you expect the person accused to accept charges -- again, not specific to Womack, because she did not go to the police with evidence of criminal activity -- to sit back and not refute them?
The "he" remains anonymous, since, according to an article in "The Telegraph" in today's Links, she's not planning to name who told her about spending $10K/role/performance, "because I greatly respect him." Given the context of her statement, that she "learned" about the going price from this highly respected person, it doesn't follow automatically that this person was the one receiving bribes.