DEUT954 A Jewish court can only rule and act upon the valid report of two legitimate witnesses [this verse], a situation that is almost impossible in cases of sexual abuse of children. And the testimony of a child is not admitted at all in a Jewish court. What then it is the right thing to do according to Judaism at the stage of innuendo, suspicion, and/or accusation without actual proof? The Rabbis had enough savvy to understand how and when to act even without adequate witnesses and to differentiate between accusations and substantiations, between circumstantial evidence and proof. The Talmud asks how King David could have acted upon the Lashon Harah (slanderous speech) of Tziba? It answers that he saw other things besides Tziba's words that convinced him of the facts, and he did not act on the words alone (Shabbat 56a). Thus, we see that sometimes, besides actual witnesses, evidence can be intuitive and common sense can be employed to act upon it, thereby ameliorating the need to rely solely upon accusations. Sometimes even an allegation is enough to justify punishment under certain circumstances (i.e., if other circumstantial evidence helps determine the facts in the case). Therefore, in particular circumstances and in the absence of valid witnesses, the Talmud states that it is permitted to give a person the punishment of flogging merely based on a rumor of evildoing (Kiddushin 81a).