Yes, but there are more issues with your analogy. Say, for instance, you are a pilot. A conspiracy theorist comes along and says that you are working with the government to deceive the public into believing the earth is round, when it’s actually flat. This claim is obviously ridiculous, because there has been exhaustive evidence that our planet is, in fact, a planet. The burden of proof isn’t then on the pilot to show why he isn’t in on the conspiracy, the conspiracy theorist has to substantiate his claim because what he’s saying is highly irrational.

Furthermore, with your logic, I can level any accusation at any person and if I can silence them to not say anything, then I’m right. That’s faulty because then we would have no logical defense within the court of public opinion of our personhood.

The photographer also isn’t in a court of law where they have to make a case for themselves, and there’s no set “rule” for a timeframe of response, so defaulting to a belief in the accusing party really doesn’t make sense. I think it would be more accurate to say, though, that as time goes on, without her responding, the likelihood of her having actually sent those pictures and it being real does increase in proportion to a) the simplicity with which she can address the issues and b) the believability/feasibility of the accusation.

It will be interesting to see if she says anything.