It's not clear to me that the women in any of these cases are necessarily "false accusers", though. What appears to have happened is that evidence has come to light that either casts doubt on the women's account or, at least, makes it very difficult to prove the third of the three definitions of rape, namely "lack of reasonable belief of consent".
It depends on the nature of the evidence. If it relies on messages beforehand that show that the two people were in contact and flirting and arranging to have sex then, for sure, a case would struggle to make it to court because at that point it comes down to "he said, she said" -- but it's clearly possible to intend to have sex with someone and then get cold feet at the instant before it actually happens.
Nor am I saying that in these cases, in fact, the women *were* raped and the lucky *** have got away with one. I'm just trying to make the point that the opposite of rape isn't a liar who deserves jail. Historically rape cases have struggled for want of evidence and, in general, it's very difficult to secure a conviction no matter how obviously it was rape to all concerned. Apparently the pressure to try and secure convictions has led to bad practice by the police and/or the CPS, pushing cases without realistic prospects of conviction or deliberately withholding "unhelpful" evidence, and both of those practices have to stop years ago -- but let's be careful not to throw the blame at the feet of the women concerned. At least, not without the fair trial that the men accused were (nearly) denied.