Yet another bombastic rape claim bites the dust

[RavenSky]

The Moderators

 

[whichphilosophy]

This issue is still going on

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Rolling-Stone-apologizes-gang-rape-story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/uva-student-rolling-stone-rape-story-reportedly-hires/story?id=27437138

We can conclude nothing until this is fully investigated.

What we do know is Ron Hubbard was there. He has been everywhere! He may not have been able to see things too well, however.

I you can dig him up he may be a witness.

 

[Derec]

One rape claim busted as false.

Hardly one. Latest among many. And how many rape claims are false, yet have not been shown to be so.

In the meantime, 255 other rapes have been reported today - TODAY - with only an arrest rate of 25% (according to the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Well this is a big country - that amounts to only 30 per 100,000 per year (compare that to bombastic claims of "1 in 4" or "1 in 5" over a woman's 4 year college attendance). And who knows how many of those and how many are true. The 25% arrest rate (if accurate) reflects the level of evidence available that a crime has been committed. And even among those that lead to arrest, prosecution and even conviction, many are false. Remember Brian Banks who spent 5 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit and that actually never happened?

Wonder how many are unreported?

Impossible to know since they weren't reported.

 

[Derec]

If that is the only reason that Rolling Stone has lost its confidence in the story, then that makes the conclusion of "..that the story is most likely BS" appear to be the result of extremely poor or biased reasoning.

No, it's not the only reason. For example. there is also the issue of injuries she sustained while being pushed through a glass table or generally while allegedly being raped for three hours that nobody else saw, not even her suitemate Emily who is defending her. But accusing a particular frat and than backtracking when it turns out it could not have been it is pretty serious in itself. That frat has been on the receiving end of reprisals, including vandalism, and they have a good case for a defamation suit against both Jackie and RS.

 

[Derec]

Sure it has to do with slut shaming. And the assumption that non-virginal women are sluts

Nope. Never made even a hint of such a claim.

and definitely, if anything actually happened, it was entirely consensual and probably her idea. Based on your posting history.

Again nope. What my posting history instead would show is that often women who claim rape are actually regretting consensual sex. That is not the same as saying that "if anything happened, it was entirely consensual".
In other words, you are building some pretty crude strawmen.

According to the original article, names of accused were not published because of the victim's fear of reprisals.

Or RS's fear of lawsuits. But how many Drews who were lifeguards at UVA in Fall 2012 can there be?
As to the accuser's (why do you keep calling her "victim") fear of reprisals, she falsely named a specific frat which was on receiving end of reprisals.
And of course, her photo and identity are out and she has her own hashtag on Twitter.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, no legal charges have been filed. It seems to be prudent to not reveal names until and unless charges are brought.

The problem is even when legal charges are brought the name of the accuser stays secret while the name of the accused is plastered everywhere. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Do those friends-actually, former friends, have any reason of their own to play down the incident?

Possibly, but they are the first ones who saw the accuser after the alleged incident. Also people at her dorm would have seen if she came home barefoot and bloody. Her suitemate Emily only mentions she became depressed some time that Fall, but does not mention seeing any injuries or blood or lost shoes.

Unless I am mistaken, at least one pledged a fraternity and indeed, at least one expressed concern about the repercussions for his own future if she went forward and told police or school authorities.

According to Jackie No-Name.

If you ask any group of witnesses about an event, there is disagreement over details. In fact, if everyone agrees about every detail, that suggests collaboration instead of independent corroboration.

Then I guess you also think the gospels are reliable eyewitness accounts despite differences because that's exactly what many apologists love to say.
Of course it is bullshit. We do not have a group of witnesses disagreeing about minor details. We have the accuser describing a brutal rape that left her bloody and injured. Yet conveniently she never sought medical help nor can anybody else corroborate these injuries. There is also the issue of her claiming the incident happened at a frat house which could not possibly have been where the alleged rape took place. And so on.

Except in the case of stranger abduction and rape, I don't know of any rape case where the victim's account isn't questioned.

All accusations should be subjected to due scrutiny. Had she gone to a hospital or police that very night her injuries (or lack of them) could have been documented. DNA samples could have been taken. All we have two years later is a story that doesn't add up and that nobody can corroborate.

For comparison, see the accounts given by Jerry Sandusky's victims. In fact, just look at that case, from start to finish, to see how much rides on accusations of sexual misconduct and the potential to have devastating repercussions for institutions. There is at least one website devoted to proving that Joe Paterno was framed.

Well I think Joe Paterno was given a raw deal regarding this case but that's beside the point.

 

[Derec]

From what I can tell, the lax journalistic standards were caused by Rolling Stone's desire to have an exclusive story.

Or the author's belief in the myth of "rape culture". Whatever her motivation, she automatically believed a rape accuser without corroborating the story and it backfired on her.

No.

No? Care to elaborate?

The penalty for lying about such things is up to the university.

I.e. you are fine with them not expelling false rape accusers?
Yet you are also fine with expelling those accused of rape based on lowest possible standard?
And yet I get accused of sexism on this board ...

University disciplinary actions are typically private matters. So unless you can show that you have access to the outcomes of all university disciplinary hearings, your claim reflects your ignorance and nothing else.

We know outcomes of many such disciplinary actions. They are not classified. And I know of no cases where a false accuser was expelled under "preponderance of evidence" standard. Do you? On the other hand, I know of many male student who were expelled based on that standard under very dubious circumstances. But it's just men right? Who cares as long as womyn are protected from us, right?

If she is found to have lied and if other similar liars have been expelled, then yes.

The very problem is that false accusers haven't been expelled by universities. I think universities should crack down on false accusations.
Of course, can you imagine the shitstorm from all the "rape culture" and "war on womyn" yelling feminazis if a rape accuser gets expelled because it is "more likely than not" that she lied about rape?

 

[Derec]

Did this "Jackie" person actually proof the story? How do we know it wasn't the Rolling Stone writer that added all these sensational details?

To my knowledge, Jackie (her actual real first name <snip>) is not claiming that RS made any part of her story up. Presumably RS would have the interviews recorded so they can defend themselves from such accusations if sued (Jackie No-Name lawyered up but it's not yet clear whether offensively or defensively of perhaps both)

 

[laughing dog]

If that is the only reason that Rolling Stone has lost its confidence in the story, then that makes the conclusion of "..that the story is most likely BS" appear to be the result of extremely poor or biased reasoning.

No, it's not the only reason. For example. there is also the issue of injuries she sustained while being pushed through a glass table or generally while allegedly being raped for three hours that nobody else saw, not even her suitemate Emily who is defending her.

That would only be an issue if she had showed them to others who deny seeing them.

But accusing a particular frat and than backtracking when it turns out it could not have been it is pretty serious in itself. That frat has been on the receiving end of reprisals, including vandalism, and they have a good case for a defamation suit against both Jackie and RS.

She has not backtracked from the location of the rape which is the frat. So, all in all, your concerns are more a reflection of your bias than reality.

 

[Derec]

Oh I don't know.....to get out of trouble with her step dad?

Just goes to show a reason doesn't have to be rational or in any way commensurate with the lengths gone to.

This girl has nothing to gain that I can see.

Apparently her Pinterest account shows she was obsessed with rape before the incident. I can't post the link because it includes her full name, but political/feminist advocacy would be a reason. Not a good reason, but then again, trying to avoid being grounded for staying out too late isn't a good reason to cry rape either.

 

[laughing dog]

Or the author's belief in the myth of "rape culture".

A fact not in evidence.

I.e. you are fine with them not expelling false rape accusers?

I am fine with the university having consistent standards. If they don't expel for lying in other similiar situations, then they should not expel students in this case.

Yet you are also fine with expelling those accused of rape based on lowest possible standard?
And yet I get accused of sexism on this board ...

This is literally a non-sequitur.

We know outcomes of many such disciplinary actions. They are not classified.

I am under the impression that university actions in disciplinary actions become public knowledge when either the victim or the disciplined students makes them public. If my impression is correct (and I know it is policy at my university), unless you have access to some database of all university disciplinary actions, your claims are based on an incomplete and biased sample.

The very problem is that false accusers haven't been expelled by universities. I think universities should crack down on false accusations.

Then you should stop wasting your time on forums like these and start working university administrators.

Of course, can you imagine the shitstorm from all the "rape culture" and "war on womyn" yelling feminazis if a rape accuser gets expelled because it is "more likely than not" that she lied about rape?

I am sure it would no worse than the shitstorm from all the male chauvanists and misogynists when some rapist is expelled without first being convicted or indicted on criminal charges.

 

[Derec]

That would only be an issue if she had showed them to others who deny seeing them.

She was allegedly barefoot and bleeding all over her torn-up dress. Kinda hard to miss if true.

She has not backtracked from the location of the rape which is the frat. So, all in all, your concerns are more a reflection of your bias than reality.

Yes she did. She accused members and pledges of a particular frat, then when faced with inconsistencies and impossibilities in her account backtracked to saying she could not be sure which frat it was.

 

[laughing dog]

She was allegedly barefoot and bleeding all over her torn-up dress. Kinda hard to miss if true.

If it is true, I am sure the rapists did not miss it. Do you think she walked around UVA for the next 3 days in a bloodied and torn dress barefoot?

Yes she did. She accused members and pledges of a particular frat, then when faced with inconsistencies and impossibilities in her account backtracked to saying she could not be sure which frat it was.

You are factually incorrect. She identified one of the rapists as a frat member. Now she says is not sure about that. If you are going to smear an alleged rape victim, at least you could get the facts straight.

 

[Derec]

A fact not in evidence.

Neither is your version.
What is beyond dispute is that the author automatically believed the rape accuser without checking.

I am fine with the university having consistent standards. If they don't expel for lying in other similiar situations, then they should not expel students in this case.

Expelling those accused of rape under lowest possible standard but not expelling those accused of lying about rape using the same standard is not consistent. In fact, it's very inconsistent.
Of course, that doesn't apply only to rape. Those falsely accusing others of any expelable offense should be expelled themselves. Of course, that is only controversial for false rape accusers.

This is literally a non-sequitur.

No, it's a fair question. Especially since such a low standard results in many falsely accused men getting expelled. Vassar, UND, UGA, and many others.

I am under the impression that university actions in disciplinary actions become public knowledge when either the victim or the disciplined students makes them public. If my impression is correct (and I know it is policy at my university), unless you have access to some database of all university disciplinary actions, your claims are based on an incomplete and biased sample.

If a false rape accuser ever got expelled don't you think all the radical feminists would not be up in arms over it? If it had ever happened, we would have heard about it.

Then you should stop wasting your time on forums like these and start working university administrators.

How? Radical feminists have all the power in universities and also have an ally in the White House.
Maybe I should go block some freeways in Minneapolis.

I am sure it would no worse than the shitstorm from all the male chauvanists and misogynists when some rapist is expelled without first being convicted or indicted on criminal charges.

So if somebody is upset that an innocent man is wrongfully expelled he is a "misogynist"? I guess because you still believe that "women don't lie about rape"?

 

[Rhea]

Hardly one. Latest among many. And how many rape claims are false, yet have not been shown to be so.

In the meantime, 255 other rapes have been reported today - TODAY - with only an arrest rate of 25% (according to the National Crime Victimization Survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Well this is a big country - that amounts to only 30 per 100,000 per year (compare that to bombastic claims of "1 in 4" or "1 in 5" over a woman's 4 year college attendance). And who knows how many of those and how many are true. The 25% arrest rate (if accurate) reflects the level of evidence available that a crime has been committed. And even among those that lead to arrest, prosecution and even conviction, many are false. Remember Brian Banks who spent 5 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit and that actually never happened?

Wonder how many are unreported?

Impossible to know since they weren't reported.

I think your math is off?
first, you divide assuming there are an equal number of reported rapes of men as of women. I don't think that is true of reported rapes.
Then, if most of those rapes are among younger and especially college-aged women, then you need to include that before you can dismiss the 1:4 or 1:5 rates.

For example, if there are 30 reported rapes in every 100,000 people per year, and say reported rapes by women outnumber those by men by 3:1 (just an example - what's the real rate of rapes reported by men? I expect it is not 1/4 of reported rapes) then it's conservatively 48 per 100,000 PER YEAR. If a woman's average life span is 70 years, the odds of her lifetime rape risk are more like 3300 in 100,000 which is now up to over 3% Now you are at 1 in 30 lifetime risk. IF most of those happen during youthful years, then you need to decide if college campuses have a higher rate of rape than placed where women are the same age but not on college campuses.

AND THEN you have to remember that these are reported rapes, not total rapes. Since the statistics seem to show that only a fraction of rapes are reported, you have to be honest and include that.

Check my math - perhaps I made some errors? But the 1:5 and 1:4 rates are now not so hard to believe; when you are determined to include all the actually relevant data and not sloppily compare reported rapes to actual rapes, and not sloppily assume that half of all reported rapes are of men (using total population as you appear to have done). Makes for a nice bombastic statement, but not an accurate one.

 

[Derec]

If it is true, I am sure the rapists did not miss it. Do you think she walked around UVA for the next 3 days in a bloodied and torn dress barefoot?

According to Jackie she left the frat house in that state, bloodied and barefoot, when she encountered her friends. Nobody claimed she walked around for three days without cleaning up.

You are factually incorrect. She identified one of the rapists as a frat member. Now she says is not sure about that.

She alleges that "Drew" took her to dinner and than to his frat house for a "date function". She initially identified both the frat house and "Drew" as being a member.

She and Drew had met while working lifeguard shifts together at the university pool, and Jackie had been floored by Drew's invitation to dinner, followed by a "date function" at his fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. The "upper tier" frat had a reputation of tremendous wealth, and its imposingly large house overlooked a vast manicured field, giving "Phi Psi" the undisputed best real estate along UVA's fraternity row known as Rugby Road.

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

If you are going to smear an alleged rape victim, at least you could get the facts straight.

Actually that goes for you.

 

[laughing dog]

According to Jackie she left the frat house in that state, bloodied and barefoot, when she encountered her friends. Nobody claimed she walked around for three days without cleaning up.

So, either her friends are mistaken or she is about meeting them if she was actually raped.

She alleges that "Drew" took her to dinner and than to his frat house for a "date function". She initially identified both the frat house and "Drew" as being a member.

She and Drew had met while working lifeguard shifts together at the university pool, and Jackie had been floored by Drew's invitation to dinner, followed by a "date function" at his fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi. The "upper tier" frat had a reputation of tremendous wealth, and its imposingly large house overlooked a vast manicured field, giving "Phi Psi" the undisputed best real estate along UVA's fraternity row known as Rugby Road.

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA

If you are going to smear an alleged rape victim, at least you could get the facts straight.

Actually that goes for you.

Nothing you wrote rebuts what I wrote nor does it show I got the facts wrong. However, it does show you were wrong. And I am not smearing anyone. So please try to get your facts and your reasoning straight - it will make your smear attempts more plausible.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The only thing really right now that can really save her story is her friends coming forward and saying, "We were there and we regret her not going to the hospital"

 

[Derec]

I think your math is off?

Is that a question?

first, you divide assuming there are an equal number of reported rapes of men as of women. I don't think that is true of reported rapes.

Yes I divided by the population as is common for crime prevalence figures.

Then, if most of those rapes are among younger and especially college-aged women, then you need to include that before you can dismiss the 1:4 or 1:5 rates.

It still doesn't begin to come close.

For example, if there are 30 reported rapes in every 100,000 people per year, and say reported rapes by women outnumber those by men by 3:1 (just an example - what's the real rate of rapes reported by men? I expect it is not 1/4 of reported rapes) then it's conservatively 48 per 100,000 PER YEAR.

Let's round up to 50. However, do remember that those are reports of rape and we cannot know how many of them are true and how many false. But I am willing to work with that number for the sake of argument.

If a woman's average life span is 70 years, the odds of her lifetime rape risk are more like 3300 in 100,000 which is now up to over 3% Now you are at 1 in 30 lifetime risk.
IF most of those happen during youthful years,

Even if ALL of them were to happen during the years of 18-22 then the risk for getting raped during those years would still be 3%. In reality, women get raped at all ages, so risk of getting raped between 18-22 would be far less than 3%. And even 3% would be far less than 20%-25% feminists claim.

then you need to decide if college campuses have a higher rate of rape than placed where women are the same age but not on college campuses.

And I do not think there is any evidence showing that. In fact "1 in 4" and "1 in 5" are not based on any reports but on shoddy studies by the likes of "Ms. Magazine" who counted every sex later regretted and every sex involving alcohol consumption as "rape". That these figures get repeated uncritically, even by the president, is scandalous.
If 20%-25% rape rate were close to actually being true that would make colleges much more dangerous than say Afghanistan.

AND THEN you have to remember that these are reported rapes, not total rapes.

You have to remember that reported rapes does not equal true rapes either.

Since the statistics seem to show that only a fraction of rapes are reported, you have to be honest and include that.

What statistics? Published by radical feminists based on inflating rape figures like the Ms. Magazine "study".

Check my math - perhaps I made some errors? But the 1:5 and 1:4 rates are now not so hard to believe;

Actually it is very hard to believe. To get from 3% over lifetime to 20%-25% during college you'd have to assume all (or at least vast majority of) rapes of women happen during college years, all reported rapes are actually true, and that there are more than 6-8 times as many unreported rapes as there are reported ones. It simply isn't credible. It's a feminist fairy tale.

 

[Derec]

So, either her friends are mistaken or she is about meeting them if she was actually raped.

Or she is lying. Hard to imagine for a radical feminist, but it does happen more frequently than you'd like to admit.

Nothing you wrote rebuts what I wrote nor does it show I got the facts wrong.

Actually it does. You claimed that she didn't name the frat.

However, it does show you were wrong.

You know saying it doesn't make it so. Just like a woman alleging rape doesn't ipso facto make her a "rape survivor".

And I am not smearing anyone.

Neither am I. Just because the facts are not favorable to Jackie doesn't mean I am smearing her. But she did smear the frat when she wrongfully accused them of hosting gang rape initiations.

 

[laughing dog]

Or she is lying. Hard to imagine for a radical feminist, but it does happen more frequently than you'd like to admit.

It happens probably less frequently than you claim.

Actually it does. You claimed that she didn't name the frat.

You are factually incorrect again. I did not claim she did not name the frat.

You know saying it doesn't make it so.

No, you being wrong makes it so.

Neither am I. Just because the facts are not favorable to Jackie doesn't mean I am smearing her. But she did smear the frat when she wrongfully accused them of hosting gang rape initiations.

When you use terms like "bombastic" to describe the rape claim, and when you persist in using inaccuracies to deride the allegation, you are smearing the victim.