[sosborn]

While that’s probably true, does that justify his actions?

[loup-vaillant]

No, but this consideration is evidence that the allegations may be false.

[sosborn]

It really isn't though. What happened after this incident has no bearing on what happened before the incident.

Does his status provide a motive for a false accusation? Sure, but that is different from evidence.

[loup-vaillant]

No it isn't different, you failed Bayesian. Evidence is not causality, it can flow backwards in time.

For instance, a mammography doesn't give you cancer. But it can detect one, and thus give you evidence that you had cancer in the first place.

[mygo]

your circular logic translates to “the fact that these allegations even bothered to come out is evidence that they may be false”

[loup-vaillant]

Read more charitably, will you?

Fame doesn't affect all accusations the same way. I believe the probability of false accusations raise faster with fame than the probability of true accusation (which is mostly dependent on actual guilt).

There's even the possibility that the probability of true accusations lowers as fame raises, leaving more room for the false ones.

[mercer]

While I don't necessarily disagree, I do wonder if this is actually true. In my experience lots of people have a weird tendency to bend over backwards to defend the famous (with Chris Brown, Jimmy Saville, and various Hollywood stars as particularly terrible examples). Perhaps Donald Trump too.

[loup-vaillant]

Fame probably attracts detraction and defence.

[mygo]

I believe the probability of people coming to your defense raises faster with fame.

[loup-vaillant]

Possibly. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the probabilities of accusations (true and false, respectively).