Maybe the US system is different, but don't you pretty much have to start any defense with a "not guilty" plea so your legal team has the most plausible deniability and thus maneuvering room to start with, before the introduction of hard evidence points out how laughably ridiculous it is?

Also, I'm flashing back to this particular journal passage that was quoted in the linked wank, and I'm hoping it wasn't some kind of initially consensual playacting gone horribly, terribly wrong.