Where the Maxim of the Law is in Reverse

            It is generally known that the adage when pertaining to the law when someone is accused or arrested is that the person is innocent until proven guilty. It is the fundamental principle that, no matter how guilty the person is, even though any obvious evidence, they are innocent until proven guilty when a court passes judgment. This goes for everything, except in matters of sex.

            In all instances regarding sex, the person is guilty unless proven innocent. The list is endless. Three examples come to mind immediately: President Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky, Prince Andrew with an underage girl, and Bill Cosby with numerous women.

            The ‘guilty until proven innocent’ belief is so pervasive in our society that periodicals don’t stop printing their opinions on the matter, every celebrity must give their view, every comic must make jokes at the accused’s expense, etc., etc., etc.

            But why is this stance taken on this subject?

            Is it the fascination about sex? Is it that a famous person could have done something against societal mores? Is it that sex is usually what people love to do, they don’t talk about out in the open, but to hear about it concerning a celebrity makes us feel uncomfortable?

            I really do not know. What I do know is that the axiom that the aphorism is backwards. It’s morally wrong. Anyone is in the place of being accused should not be held to ridicule until they are proven to have committed the crime.

Questionable Accuser of Cosby

            The statements made by P. J. Masten, a former Playboy bunny, smell of inconsistencies. Not only is she using the same m. o. as the other women who accused Bill Cosby, but her allegations are sound contradictory.

            First she says that she was given liquor and does remember anything after that. That could be a sign of being drunk. (I’m not saying conclusively that she was drunk; I state it as a possibility.) When she woke up she said she was beside a naked man and that she did not remember anything after the drink. She claimed absolutely that she knew she was raped. That sounds conflicting. If she doesn’t remember anything after the drink, how can she be so definitive that it was rape? When someone is drunk, they do not remember what they did, and they are doing it of their own free will and may very well not be recalled.

            She is also the same woman who accused Marv Albert. If she was so definite about Cosby, how could she allow herself to get into the same situation with someone else?

            She decided to say speak about Cosby after 15 year old Judy Huth accused Cosby about a sexual assault at the Playboy Mansion in 1974. This one is really hard to believe because a 15 year old should be at the Playboy Mansion in the first place.

            Then she said that there are at least a dozen other former bunnies with similar stories. This could very well be a comment where the accuser just picked a number and made it large.

            This is one accusation that I cannot believe. Sounds like someone jumping on the bus trying get away with another copycat accusation. I’m not making an absolute conclusion. This is just an opinion based on the accuser’s comments and I am not making a judgment.