Yep.
And technically they are right. Except in those cases, after one party has clearly lied about an incident, there would likely need to be strong proof that they can prove her lies were just isolated to that one event. What the league has laid out is not nearly enough to overcome the fact that the woman in question clearly lied about one of the incidents.
Forget the low threshold of the NFL. It's just common sense. When one has nothing but circumstantial evidence on the case but one of the parties has shown to have a very questionable credibility issue, only those with an agenda look beyond that.
The NFL has a clear agenda. They've been burned on this before and have taken haymakers from a PR perspective. So their reaction the next time a star player gets accused? They have to make it right and show people that they do take this seriously. So they back fill a case to support their predetermined conclusion and now it's coming apart on them, which is why you see them release that petty statement about the NFLPA leaking information.
They better have more than what they have made public or they are going to look foolish.