History shows we shouldn't rush to judgment in Greg Kelly case

Article here. Excerpt:

'Being a man accused of a sex crime these days is tantamount to being convicted in the court of public opinion. Even if you are cleared, Google your name until the day you die and the stink of “sexual abuse” or “rape” will be in the first graph of your bio.

Ask any of those young guys falsely accused in the Duke University lacrosse team “rape” scandal. Ask any of the kids who did time for brutalizing the Central Park jogger only for DNA to vindicate them.

This by no means is to suggest that Kelly's accuser is a liar.

Any woman who accuses a man of rape or sexual assault should be taken seriously. I have no evidence to contradict her claims that Kelly date-raped her while she was intoxicated in her law office after they had drinks in October.

But I haven’t seen anything to back up her story yet either.

I am not blaming the victim. But we in the press and you in the jury of public opinion must ask: Who is to say that the "victim" isn't the accused?
...
And I know that even questioning the veracity of an accuser in these politically correct times can be misinterpreted as defending the accused. Not true. But forgive me if I approach this Greg Kelly story with healthy skepticism, with the burden of proof in the accuser's corner, especially since she waited three months to file a report and seems to have been in repeated contact with Kelly since the night they met.'
...
Maybe this accuser is telling the truth.

But until it's proved, let's remember that Greg Kelly is innocent.'