Another Trump Rape Surfaces

[Elixir]

I set up a scenario in which 50% say yes but only 10% were raped.

You "set up a scenario"? Well look at you putting your big boy pants on.

Did the poll do that, though? Which is the only relevant question.

No, it did not. It did not ask the women in "two families, each containing 5 women" the question.

THIS poll--the professionally conducted poll, using a representative sample of people who don't know each other and aren't members of each other's families--extrapolates to at least half of all women in America having been sexually assaulted and that this number is the lower bound, which means it's likely much higher.

So, are you done yet, or is there more pointless derail up your ass?

I used a small group to get a 100% sample so there could be no statistical error. The whole point of polling is to use a representative sample to guess at the actual value. Scale it up and sample instead of asking everyone and you should get the same results with a bit of statistical error thrown in the mix. You have flunked basic statistics here.

Might be more useful to decide who is the arbiter of "representative" when talking about the relationships between various sample sizes and the actual populations they supposed to represent. Statistical consistency doesn't necessarily correspond with empirical reality.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I used a small group to get a 100% sample so there could be no statistical error.

Horseshit. You rigged your "poll" to achieve a preconceived outcome. You flunked life.

It's not possible to have rigged it as I was simply illustrating.

What the fuck does that even mean? “Illustrating” somehow makes it impossible to rig a preconceived outcome?

How does the set of data I provided not fit the poll?

So the word “super” is just honorific. Huh. I did not know that.

 

[zorq]

[TLDR] Stop arguing about this poll. You can't derive any good information from it.[/TLDR]

Suppose there is a poll in a particular enclosed community asking whether you or someone you know has been assaulted, but they only ask 5 people.

Person #1 was recently stricken with amnesia. She doesn't know anyone but herself and as far as she knows, she wasn't assaulted. She answers No
Person #2 knows herself and 9 other people, 2 of whom were assaulted. She answers Yes.
Person #3 knows herself and 99 other people, 3 of whom were assaulted. She answers Yes.
Person #4 knows herself and 999 other people, only 5 of whom were assaulted. She answers Yes.
Person #5 is a cult leader who takes intimate confession from 9,999 of her followers and knows that 5000 of them have been assaulted. She answers Yes.

So, we have 4 yeses and 1 No. Should we assume that the assault rate in this community is 80%? No, we can't do that. This poll didn't actually take a sampling of 5 people. This poll has taken a sampling of 11,111. And of those 11,111 people, 5,010 people were assaulted. That indicates an assault rate of 45.1% in this community. Now we need to remember that some of those people may have been inadvertently sampled twice because Persons #1-5 might be acquainted with the same people. If there is total overlap in the sampling then we really only sampled 10,000 and the actual assault rate is 50%.

Both 45% and 50% are pretty far off from the 80% figure that we got from our Yes-No ballot.

But it gets worse. Suppose we didn't get around to interviewing person #5. That gives our yes/no ballot result 3 yeses and 1 no. It's a 75% assault rate. But how many people did we really survey? We really surveyed, at the high end with no overlap, 1111 people 8 of whom were assaulted. This gives us a real assault rate of 0.7%. At the low end, with total overlap, it's 5 assaults out of 1,000. An assault rate of 0.5% This true assault rate is WAY lower than the 75% rate that the poll might suggest.

Now suppose that Persons 2-4 were acquainted with completely different people.

Person 1 still answers No.
Person 2 knows nobody out of 10 people who were assaulted, she answers No.
Person 3: nobody out of 100: No
Person 4: Nobody out of 1,000: No
Person 5: 5,000/10,000: Yes

Our yes/no poll picks up a 20% rate of assault. But what is the real rate of assault? At the high end with no overlaps, it's 5,000/11,111= 45% at the low end. With total overlap, it's 5,000/10,000.= 50%.
45% and 50% are again very far from the 20% the Yes/No poll offered up, but this time, the Yes/No poll vastly underestimated the assault rate instead of overestimating it.

In other words, it's hard to draw any good conclusions from polls that ask about things that happened to "somebody you know."

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Suppose there is a poll in a particular enclosed community

No, let's not. Because, just like with Loren, those aren't the conditions of the poll.

This will not change no matter how many times anyone itt says anything deeply idiotic like, "Suppose the poll was taken on Mars and there were no people there," or "What if the poll asked only three families of ten women" or "I came up with a scenario in which..."

The conditions of the poll are not subject to question. They do not change at someone's whim. The poll is not open to interpretation or personal agenda. The results are likewise not open to change or alteration or speculation or anything at all.

They tell us what they tell us and that is that at least half of all women have been sexually assaulted.

End of fucking story.

 

[laughing dog]

What I find fascinating about this "poll" debate is that LP insists that each answer to the question cannot be interpreted to mean a different victim while he used the "at least one" to mean exactly one in his calculations.

 

[Rhea]

1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

Can you support the highlighted claim with evidence and facts? Or is this just another rhetorical hail Mary trope?

To start, can you please name all the public figures that you had in your mind when you said this, who have, say, more than 10 accusations of rape against them that have been shown to be bogus?


.
.
.

Or, tell you what. Name ONE.

Did we ever get a single example to show for this statement?

 

[Rhea]

https://www.wcsap.org/help/about-sexual-assault/how-often-does-it-happen

From the link

HOW OFTEN DOES IT HAPPEN?

Anyone can be a victim of sexual assault, though women, children and some demographic groups are more frequently victimized than others. The prevalence of sexual assault goes far beyond the cases that make it to the courtroom or the evening news. Sexual assault impacts hundreds of thousands of people each year in the United States from all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. However, low reporting rates and varying research designs make it difficult to find one set of statistics that tells the whole story.

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN WASHINGTON

• In 2017, Community Sexual Assault Programs in Washington served 13,398 primary victims of sexual assault and 9,175 secondary sexual assault victims.1
• A national survey of Washingtonians between 2010-2012 found that 45% of women and 22% of men have experienced sexual violence during their lifetime.2
• In 2016, 17.7% of 10th graders in Washington reported that they had been made to engage in unwanted kissing, sexual touch or intercourse. 3

A STUDY OF WASHINGTON WOMEN

• The 2001 survey from which these Washington statistics were drawn focused on adult women. We know from national data that men and boys are also victims of sexual assault.4
• 80% of Washington women's sexual assault experiences occurred prior to the age of 18.
• More than 33% of women in Washington State have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime.
• Almost 20% of these women have been the victims of multiple assaults by different offenders.
• Only about 25% of the women who suffered physical injuries sought medical assistance, and only 33% sought counseling.

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE UNITED STATES

• Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes.5
• National surveys of adults suggest that between 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men report that they were victims of sexual abuse and/or assault during their childhood.
• 22% of victims were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32% were between the ages of 12 and 17.6
• The majority of male and female rape victims knew their perpetrator.7
• Of surveyed college women, about 90% of rape and sexual assault victims knew their attacker prior to the assault.8

SEXUAL ASSAULT WITHIN UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS

• 43% of lesbian and bisexual women, and 30% of gay and bisexual men, reported having experienced at least one form of sexual assault victimization during their lifetimes.9
• 34% of Native American and Alaskan Native women reported experiencing an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime, compared with 19% of African American women, 18% of white women, and 7% of Asian American women.10
• Among adults who are developmentally disabled, as many as 83% of the females and 32% of the males are the victims of sexual assault.11
• Women with disabilities are raped and abused at a rate at least twice that of the general population of women.12
• A 2007 study found that 5% (or 60,500) of the more than 1.3 million inmates held in federal and state prisons had been sexually abused in the previous year alone.13

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

https://www.wcsap.org/help/about-sexual-assault/how-often-does-it-happen

From the link...A national survey of Washingtonians between 2010-2012 found that 45% of women and 22% of men have experienced sexual violence during their lifetime.

That, as well as the OTHER source I quoted (from post 171, emphasis mine):

Here are some more unsettling statistics

The results, released in a report Wednesday, show that 77 percent of women had experienced verbal sexual harassment, and 51 percent had been sexually touched without their permission. About 41 percent said they had been sexually harassed online, and 27 percent said they had survived sexual assault.

Conclusively confirms the YouGov poll findings, that at least half of all women have been sexually assaulted.

Which is ALL to say (once again):

Note that Carroll related stories of being sexually touched without her permission as well as stories of more severe contact (i.e., penetration), so she was including in her list of 21 "most hideous men" in her life, those who molested her but did not necessarily penetrate her vagina (including the very first incident that I didn't relate, but she did; where she was molested, but not penetrated).

So, again, the extent of the problem is way the fuck up there for well over 80 million women (in America alone) and in no way strains credulity that at least one among them had been assaulted in varying degrees numerous times throughout her seventy five years.

No matter what other agenda is being pushed by the usual suspects itt, we have abundant confirmation now from multiple sources/studies concluding that sexual abuse of women, in particular, occurs to at least half of all women and that this percentage is a lower bound, not an upper.

Meaning the full extent is far worse.

And because that is the case, it in no way strains credulity that at least one woman on the planet has met 21 such "hideous men" in her life. Far from it in fact. It means that it's far more common than uncommon to meet a "hideous man."

 

[blastula]

She says she may have his dna.

AP Exclusive: Woman who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA - The Washington Post

Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample on March 2 in Washington for “analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress.”

Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested. A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them m

If it's what she says, I love it especially later in the summer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Was the DNA bankrupt? That'd be a sign it was his.

 

[Derec]

Was the DNA bankrupt? That'd be a sign it was his.

No, but I am sure it's corrupted by now.

 

[Toni]

Was the DNA bankrupt? That'd be a sign it was his.

No, but I am sure it's corrupted by now.

Not sure if you're being funny/ironic but it is rather amazing what they can do with DNA samples, even ones that are extremely degraded.

 

[Derec]

She says she may have his dna.

Would enough DNA even survive 25 years under these circumstances (on fabric, in a closet, exposed to oxygen?) Even if, as she claims, she neither got rid of nor washed or dry cleaned it for 25 years. I guess file it under "when the Barney's dressing room sex was so good, you want to keep a memento for a quarter century" ...

Carroll filed a defamation suit against Trump in November after the president denied her allegation. Her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, then had the black wool coat-style dress tested.

Too bad the dress isn't blue!

A lab report with the legal notice says DNA found on the sleeves was a mix of at least four people, at least one of them m[ale]

So I guess she can sue at least three more people for rape. What fun!

Your article is WaPo and they have quite a restrictive paywall, so I found this story instead:
E. Jean Carroll who says Trump raped her seeks his DNA to test against sample from her dress

“The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening,” she wrote. She donned it for a photo accompanying the magazine piece.

1. Nice product placement!
2. Did she wear to the magazine photo shoot before or after the dress was tested for DNA? If before, handling and wearing the dress is further opportunity for adding more DNA and degrading existing old DNA ...

“Unidentified male DNA on the dress could prove that Donald Trump not only knows who I am, but also that he violently assaulted me in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman and then defamed me by lying about it and impugning my character," Carroll said in a statement Thursday.

Presence of DNA by itself on a dress certainly does not prove that he "violently assaulted" her.
And given the lack of a chain of custody, any DNA could have been introduced deliberately onto the dress at some later date, maybe even last year, when she accused him.

Her lawyer, Kaplan, said it was “standard operating procedure” in a sexual assault investigation to request a DNA sample from the accused.

This is a defamation lawsuit, not a "sexual assault investigation". And does Roberta "Jackie Chiles" Kaplan also things it's "standard operating procedure" to keep an alleged key piece of evidence in a closet for 25 years?

If it's what she says, I love it especially later in the summer.

What do you mean "later in the summer"?

 

[Derec]

Not sure if you're being funny/ironic but it is rather amazing what they can do with DNA samples, even ones that are extremely degraded.

The techniques are quite good these days, but they are not miraculous. In the US, 20 (used to be 13) different loci are used to compare DNA samples. A very degraded sample is going to yield an incomplete profile, say maybe 8 loci. The article is not clear on the quality of the profiles they supposedly obtained. Having a mix of contributors also makes analysis more challenging.
Neither do they say whether they only found DNA fragments (which could be from touch/transfer DNA, which is hardly unexpected on a sleeve of a garment) or if say sperm cells were able to be identified.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not sure if you're being funny/ironic but it is rather amazing what they can do with DNA samples, even ones that are extremely degraded.

The techniques are quite good these days, but they are not miraculous.

They don't need to be.

 

[Derec]

They don't need to be.

They would have to be for usable amounts of DNA to exist after 25 years on a garment. The 4 contributors to the DNA fragments have almost certainly been transferred to the dress much more recently. It is very possibly touch DNA from when she wore the dress (without cleaning it first) when she gave interviews about the supposed rape.

 

[Elixir]

Did anyone actually SEE Jeffrey Epstein rape anyone?
No?
Then they must all be lying and he must have been innocent just like Donald Trump.
It's a shame Trump's goons had to kill him.

 

[Derec]

Did anyone actually SEE Jeffrey Epstein rape anyone?

What does that have to do with viability of small amounts of DNA surviving 25 years in a warm, oxygen-rich environment? Or the fact that there is no chain of custody for the dress over that period of time?

It's a shame Trump's goons had to kill him.

I thought it was Hillary's goons.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

They don't need to be.

They would have to be for usable amounts of DNA to exist after 25 years on a garment.

Nonsense. DNA from semen stains have been identified in samples as old as 50 years:

Of the 14 semen stains tested, 12 out of 14 stains (86%) produced strong, positive test results for acid phosphatase (including a semen stain almost 50 years old!).
...
Full profiles (10 loci) were obtained from 18 of the 22 samples (82%) (e.g. blood, saliva, semen and vaginal samples) as follows: C-1, C-2, C10, C-11, R-7, R-8, R-9,R-10, S-2, S-3, F-1, F-2, A-2, A-3, Fr-2, Fr-4, Red-1 and Red-2.
b. Partial profiles [types were obtained at most loci] were obtained from 2 of the 22 samples (9%) (e.g. one semen and one bloodstain): (a) Fr-1
[bloodstain made in 1974 and held at room temperature] and (b) Fr-3 [one semen stain made in 1975 and held under a variety of conditions].
c. Only the amelogenin locus, which is the smallest locus of this multiplex, was noted in 2 of the 22 samples (9%): (a) A-1 [semen stain made in 1952 and held at room temperature] and (b) C-3 [bloodstain made in 1975 and held frozen/refrigerated or at room temperature]
...
1. Most samples [82%] from this study yielded full profiles. Given the range of ages of these stains and the various storage conditions in which these stains were maintained, it is clear that DNA is a very stable molecule and it is quite possible to obtain a complete DNA profile from samples that are quite old. Full profiles (10 loci) were obtained on samples that were more than 25 years old and which were described as being stored at room temperature.

And here's a study showing: Persistence of DNA from laundered semen stains, where the attempt was to wash out the semen.

And here's one on the persistence of DNA on clothes after exposure to water for different time periods-a study on bathtub, pond, and river (also evidencing the durability of DNA even in cases where clothing has been submerged for months in a river or pond and exposed to nature).

 

[Toni]

Not sure if you're being funny/ironic but it is rather amazing what they can do with DNA samples, even ones that are extremely degraded.

The techniques are quite good these days, but they are not miraculous. In the US, 20 (used to be 13) different loci are used to compare DNA samples. A very degraded sample is going to yield an incomplete profile, say maybe 8 loci. The article is not clear on the quality of the profiles they supposedly obtained. Having a mix of contributors also makes analysis more challenging.
Neither do they say whether they only found DNA fragments (which could be from touch/transfer DNA, which is hardly unexpected on a sleeve of a garment) or if say sperm cells were able to be identified.

It's quite likely that they recover enough DNA to perform a good analysis to determine DNA in the semen sample left on the dress.

As for your talk about loci, etc. I know you're smart and read things on the internet. My degree is in molecular biology. It's more than possible that they could identify who the semen belonged to.