Here Comes The Left

[Loren Pechtel]

He could have just settled it by providing one and settling things. He refused and I am confident that it's because he is guilty and he knows it.
Tom

This article says he offered it but that the Democratic judge refused it. Because the judge wanted the case tried on vibes and popularity, I guess.

You guess--meaning you didn't read the article.

The judge said that her attorneys had been trying to get it for years, it's too late for him to turn around and try to use it as evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Biden administration saved industries and businesses —and families—from economic collapse and disaster in much the same way as FDR’s New Deal helped pull us out of the Great Depression

The only thing I seem to remember is how during COVID the big players like Wal Mart and Amazon got to stay open in business while many of the mom and pop's had to close and go out of business.

Your memory isn't very good.

The only things that were restricted were retail. And it had nothing to do with size, but with what they sold. Stuff people needed, stay open. Non-essentials, not worth risking lives over.

 

[RVonse]

You have not defined socialism either.

It is workers owning the means of production. It's not that difficult of a definition to find.

That is not the definition of socialism most of the left commonly uses. But lets go with your definition since you like it.

The only (almost) successful country I can think of using your definition of socialism is the USSR (prior to its bankruptcy). So don't try to tell me any of the countries (like Germany or Switzerland) in western Europe are happier because they are socialist. Because those countries still run on privately held corporations with private management. Find me a successful socialist country with a satisfied population that has ever existed.

And since we know how socialism turned out for the USSR, would it not make sense to look into other options for the US if we are having issues with free market capitalism?

 

[laughing dog]

Brilliant. Not only have you provided a specific example without indicating what makes it an example of socialism; But you have followed up by describing taxation (not socialism), and then finally attempting a definition, but using the word you are seeking to define as part thereof, thus rendering it useless.

What the hell do you think taxation is!! It is taking 1 person's labor and pooling it to share with others forced by the state.

If taxation is socialism, humans have been practicing socialism since before Christ.

Whats your point?

My point is that taxation has been around since before Christ which, according to your view, socialism has been around since then as well. Moreover, taxation was present in the colonies, and under the Articles of Confederation, and is present in the Constitution which means that according to your view that socialism has been and will be ubiquitous in the US. Which suggests that complaining about that form of socialism is the same as complaining that water is wet.

I believe humans have been practicing socialism before Christ. One form or another. But that does not tell us whether socialism is a good system or not. Because slavery was also practiced before Christ as well.

Slavery is not practiced now in the US, so your analogy falls apart.

 

[RVonse]

The Biden administration saved industries and businesses —and families—from economic collapse and disaster in much the same way as FDR’s New Deal helped pull us out of the Great Depression

The only thing I seem to remember is how during COVID the big players like Wal Mart and Amazon got to stay open in business while many of the mom and pop's had to close and go out of business.

Your memory isn't very good.

The only things that were restricted were retail. And it had nothing to do with size, but with what they sold. Stuff people needed, stay open. Non-essentials, not worth risking lives over.

In my location (St. Louis) so many business were shut down (by decree) that it made a noticeable difference in my daily drive on the freeway. It cut my commute down by half the time. Besides retail many schools were closed. Office personnel were told to stay home as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think the issue is not perceiving the issue is assault when it is.

Both are an issue. The former (what Loren said) is a type I error, while yours is a Type II error. I think that here (and when dealing with crime in general) type I errors are far more significant. We should not try to reduce type II errors by lowering the threshold and thereby increasing the number of type I errors.

Exactly. I keep seeing the low rate of conviction being presented as justification for shifting the balance--but the low conviction rate is not due to excessive caution in the first place, so this argument is invalid.

Why do you say that?

Because I keep hearing the small percent of rapes that result in convictions being presented as a reason to make it easier to convict. You can't convict the person you didn't identify.

And the reality is the only crime with a substantial conviction rate is murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is the original ProPublica story.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.

www.propublica.org

Understandable.

The police confronted her with a big contradiction in her story, she recanted.

Forced her to recant instead of doing a proper investigation.

Recanting was offered, not forced.

It sounds like she took the non-confrontation option rather than address the problems with her story. I don't understand why she was prosecuted but ProPublica tends to present a pretty lopsided picture.

 

[Toni]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think the issue is not perceiving the issue is assault when it is.

Both are an issue. The former (what Loren said) is a type I error, while yours is a Type II error. I think that here (and when dealing with crime in general) type I errors are far more significant. We should not try to reduce type II errors by lowering the threshold and thereby increasing the number of type I errors.

Exactly. I keep seeing the low rate of conviction being presented as justification for shifting the balance--but the low conviction rate is not due to excessive caution in the first place, so this argument is invalid.

Why do you say that?

Because I keep hearing the small percent of rapes that result in convictions being presented as a reason to make it easier to convict. You can't convict the person you didn't identify.

And the reality is the only crime with a substantial conviction rate is murder.

That’s not a reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is the original ProPublica story.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.

www.propublica.org

Understandable.

The police confronted her with a big contradiction in her story, she recanted.

Unfortunately people like you become police officers and serve on juries.

It is no wonder that rape is vastly under-reported.

And why in the world should we believe her? She told two quite different versions of events. What were the cops supposed to do when her story doesn't hold together??

 

[Arctish]

Here is the original ProPublica story.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.

www.propublica.org

Understandable.

The police confronted her with a big contradiction in her story, she recanted.

Forced her to recant instead of doing a proper investigation.

OMG, this story again? And you still have learned nothing after all our discussions in different threads, Loren? You just keep inventing reasons to claim Marie was at fault?

How many times do we need to go over the facts before you start to question your faith that the police did no wrong when they coerced a "maybe" from a rape victim and then punished her for the attempt to report the rape to other officers? Their actions resulted in the further victimization of a rape victim and allowed a rapist to go on raping without anyone doing a proper investigation which might have led to him being found and arrested sooner.

You just can't stop victim-blaming when you're defending police misconduct, can you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.

How about expelled from university without due process?

No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.

But they weren't convicted, just expelled. A convenient way to avoid having to prove guilt. But major punishment anyway.

The government keeps looking for ways of bypassing the concept of having to prove it.

This is one such example (the universities were acting as encouraged by the government).

Pushing the payment system to shun industries. Look at the porn market: incest-themed stuff suddenly shifted to step-incest themed. Again, the government was behind that.

Some places it costs you more to challenge a ticket than the fine--and it's court costs that you don't get back even if you prevail. Or what happened to a former coworker--ex lied about child support. The government was after him to repay what they had paid her--didn't matter that it was an open-and-shut case, proving he didn't owe the money would cost more than paying it, and he wouldn't recover costs if he fought it.

We switched to the millimeter wave scanners at the airport. It's been proven in a real world situation that you can smuggle small metal items past them, and it has been shown theoretically that you can't see explosives carefully feathered onto the body. Combine those, they have basically no chance against a well-disguised bomb that would have been caught by the metal detector. Security went down--but the scanners stop money mules carrying cash on their body. Somehow I find this highly suspicious. (Millimeter wave is better at detecting a clumsy bomb, but to date every attack has been by means that security could not catch--don't assume a stupid adversary!)

And, on a related note: CBP conducting searches pretty much anywhere (within 100 miles of a border--but international airports are borders) without a warrant. I drove through one of their traps once--directed everyone off the highway at a rest stop, one lane going past a bunch of equipment. No indication of what was going on but it makes no sense other than as an electronic search of the car. Nope, cops are free to use cameras without a warrant but any form of sensory augmentation (but not simply magnification) requires a warrant.

I'm sure this list is far from complete, it's just what comes to mind at the moment.

I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.

Doesn't mean all of us. I have never been in a situation with the slightest doubt about consent.

Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.

Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.

Withdrawing would be neutral, not positive.

Emotional withdrawal is not neutral. It is the same thing as freezing, seeking to avoid a confrontation/danger.

It would look neutral to an observer and that's the viewpoint we were talking about.

If a student is caught cheating, they are frequently subjected to discipline, including expulsion. If a student is found to be guilty of theft on campus, instead of pressing charges with the police, the student is often expelled or at least, expelled from on campus housing.

Schools have no real concept of a fair trial. Life changing decisions being made by amateurs. Some of us have a problem with that.

If a student is credibly accused of sexual assault, the victim is heavily discouraged from going to the police. In general, rape victims who go to the police are quite frequently discouraged from pressing charges.

Occasionally the accused is not expelled but is expected to move to a different t firm, assuming on campus housing ( which is less frequent these days). They may also be expected to alter their class schedule so that the victim does not have to see them in class. These are far short of expulsion which is still far far short of being charged with rape. The accused can move in with their life without the weight of a conviction to interfere with their future careers or housing options.

Which often is a de-facto expulsion. Before any attempt to determine the truth and with no recourse if the allegation is found false.

In any case, the victim has to live with what happened, often has little or no say in what disciplinary or criminal charges are filed against their attacker. They must endure invasive exams to ensure that there is no disease, pregnancy or other physical damage in need of surgical repair or other medical intervention .

Your sympathy lies entirely with accused males. You continue to allege that the rape victim in the article linked in this thread lied because there were some inconsistencies in her accounting if her attack, even though it was later proven that the attacker raped other women using the same method of accessing victims. Including her.

One major inconsistency, with things diverging from that point.

I would not mind small flaws, memory is fallible. But two substantially different paths, one must be false. Most favorable interpretation is that she doesn't remember and is making it up rather than say she doesn't remember.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sigh. Have you ever been present when death was declared? I have. There are clear medical tests that are performed to declare someone has died. Time of death and confirming methods are duly recorded.

I think you are mixing up live births v still births with fetal deaths. In some places, any fetal heartbeat is taken as a sign the fetus is alive and presumably viable. Unfortunately having a heart beat does not guarantee viability.

Before I said tests take time.

Completely incidentally, ran into a description:

Opinion | Declaring Death Is Not So Simple

A recent case in Arizona brought this issue to the fore

www.medpagetoday.com

How do you propose to apply this to determine if it was a live birth??

 

[Arctish]

Here is the original ProPublica story.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.

www.propublica.org

Understandable.

The police confronted her with a big contradiction in her story, she recanted.

Forced her to recant instead of doing a proper investigation.

Recanting was offered, not forced.

It sounds like she took the non-confrontation option rather than address the problems with her story. I don't understand why she was prosecuted but ProPublica tends to present a pretty lopsided picture.

What exactly were the problems with her story?

Be specific.

You have had years to think about it and plenty of opportunity to research it. Tell us what a sleeping woman who wakes to being sexually assaulted by a stranger is supposed to know and be able to describe.

If you don't know what the problems was, why do you suppose it was the traumatized victim's fault, not the fault of the cops who were tasked with investigating her report and utterly failed to do even a half-assed job of it?

***Mods, can you split this off into its own thread? This shit is too important to ignore but it's a derail in this one. ***

 

[Elixir]

If taxation is socialism, humans have been practicing socialism since before Christ.

All that practice, you’d think we’d be better at it by now.

 

[Elixir]

Clearly you have not spent time near cow barns.

Cows are clearly sick animals. Horses metabolize hay correctly.
Funny thing about cow barns though …
Did you ever notice that they aren’t that bad when you’re right IN them, but can be chokingly bad a few hundred yards downwind?

My parents turned a deaf ear to our pleas fur a horse which would be absolutely no extra trouble or expense living at my inches farm so I don’t have as much experience with horse emissions as I do with those of cows but I suppose it’s all in the nose of the smeller?

Lots of it definitely is. Nothing sensory connects more directly to emotions and memories, than smells. If your only association with horse poop was having to eat it for lunch every day when you were a little kid, it probably makes you sick.
Fly spray really gets to me. The smell calls up great times…

 

[jonatha]

You have not defined socialism either.

It is workers owning the means of production.

That's communism.

In socialism the state (I.e. government) owns the means of production.

 

[bilby]

You have not defined socialism either.

It is workers owning the means of production.

That's communism.

In socialism the state (I.e. government) owns the means of production.

Like in the UK between 1945 and 1979, where the state owned the railways, postal service, telecommunications, healthcare, civil aviation, and inland waterways and shipping. They also owned the electricity, gas, steel, and coal industries. There were state owned aerospace and aircraft companies, shipbuilders, car makers, and military hardware and munitions manufacturers. The Bank of England was nationalised.

Many food and farm products were centrally marketed by government in the UK in this period, with eggs and milk being particularly prominent - I remember TV ads by the Milk Marketing Board in particular, presumably because at the time I was their target audience.

The surrealist author Jasper Fforde has, as a running gag in many of his books, advertising from the Toast Marketing Board, though I am confident that this is fictional at least in our present reality.

My recollection, and the history of the 1950s and '60s, suggest that the UK economy and populace thrived under this system.

Strategic commodities, infrastructure, and natural monopolies such as utilities, were all nationalised; Everything else was run as for-profit private industry, with a robust regulatory framework to control externalities such as pollution and environmental damage.

 

[Toni]

The Biden administration saved industries and businesses —and families—from economic collapse and disaster in much the same way as FDR’s New Deal helped pull us out of the Great Depression

The only thing I seem to remember is how during COVID the big players like Wal Mart and Amazon got to stay open in business while many of the mom and pop's had to close and go out of business.

Your memory isn't very good.

The only things that were restricted were retail. And it had nothing to do with size, but with what they sold. Stuff people needed, stay open. Non-essentials, not worth risking lives over.

In my location (St. Louis) so many business were shut down (by decree) that it made a noticeable difference in my daily drive on the freeway. It cut my commute down by half the time. Besides retail many schools were closed. Office personnel were told to stay home as well.

Schools/universities went online which was difficult for students abstractly and family.

I live in a small college town. I was especially glad during the pandemic that this was so. Fewer people coming into town so

Sigh. Have you ever been present when death was declared? I have. There are clear medical tests that are performed to declare someone has died. Time of death and confirming methods are duly recorded.

I think you are mixing up live births v still births with fetal deaths. In some places, any fetal heartbeat is taken as a sign the fetus is alive and presumably viable. Unfortunately having a heart beat does not guarantee viability.

Before I said tests take time.

Completely incidentally, ran into a description:

Opinion | Declaring Death Is Not So Simple

A recent case in Arizona brought this issue to the fore

www.medpagetoday.com

How do you propose to apply this to determine if it was a live birth??

have you ever been present when someone is declared dead? I was with my mother when she died and when they called time of death. Over in a few seconds. Stethoscope, pen light. Two nurses.

Have you ever been present at a birth? They do APGAR. The baby is assessed for breath, heartbeat, response to stimuli. If the baby doesn’t cry spontaneously. They do more vigorous stimulation. I have not been present at a stillbirth.

Most stillbirths occur before term, for a variety of reasons. IA physician performs an ultrasound to detect heart beat. More rarely a stillbirth is the result of complications during birth.

 

[Toni]

No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.

How about expelled from university without due process?

No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.

But they weren't convicted, just expelled. A convenient way to avoid having to prove guilt. But major punishment anyway.

The government keeps looking for ways of bypassing the concept of having to prove it.

This is one such example (the universities were acting as encouraged by the government).

Pushing the payment system to shun industries. Look at the porn market: incest-themed stuff suddenly shifted to step-incest themed. Again, the government was behind that.

Some places it costs you more to challenge a ticket than the fine--and it's court costs that you don't get back even if you prevail. Or what happened to a former coworker--ex lied about child support. The government was after him to repay what they had paid her--didn't matter that it was an open-and-shut case, proving he didn't owe the money would cost more than paying it, and he wouldn't recover costs if he fought it.

We switched to the millimeter wave scanners at the airport. It's been proven in a real world situation that you can smuggle small metal items past them, and it has been shown theoretically that you can't see explosives carefully feathered onto the body. Combine those, they have basically no chance against a well-disguised bomb that would have been caught by the metal detector. Security went down--but the scanners stop money mules carrying cash on their body. Somehow I find this highly suspicious. (Millimeter wave is better at detecting a clumsy bomb, but to date every attack has been by means that security could not catch--don't assume a stupid adversary!)

And, on a related note: CBP conducting searches pretty much anywhere (within 100 miles of a border--but international airports are borders) without a warrant. I drove through one of their traps once--directed everyone off the highway at a rest stop, one lane going past a bunch of equipment. No indication of what was going on but it makes no sense other than as an electronic search of the car. Nope, cops are free to use cameras without a warrant but any form of sensory augmentation (but not simply magnification) requires a warrant.

I'm sure this list is far from complete, it's just what comes to mind at the moment.

I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.

Doesn't mean all of us. I have never been in a situation with the slightest doubt about consent.

Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.

Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.

Withdrawing would be neutral, not positive.

Emotional withdrawal is not neutral. It is the same thing as freezing, seeking to avoid a confrontation/danger.

It would look neutral to an observer and that's the viewpoint we were talking about.

If a student is caught cheating, they are frequently subjected to discipline, including expulsion. If a student is found to be guilty of theft on campus, instead of pressing charges with the police, the student is often expelled or at least, expelled from on campus housing.

Schools have no real concept of a fair trial. Life changing decisions being made by amateurs. Some of us have a problem with that.

If a student is credibly accused of sexual assault, the victim is heavily discouraged from going to the police. In general, rape victims who go to the police are quite frequently discouraged from pressing charges.

Occasionally the accused is not expelled but is expected to move to a different t firm, assuming on campus housing ( which is less frequent these days). They may also be expected to alter their class schedule so that the victim does not have to see them in class. These are far short of expulsion which is still far far short of being charged with rape. The accused can move in with their life without the weight of a conviction to interfere with their future careers or housing options.

Which often is a de-facto expulsion. Before any attempt to determine the truth and with no recourse if the allegation is found false.

In any case, the victim has to live with what happened, often has little or no say in what disciplinary or criminal charges are filed against their attacker. They must endure invasive exams to ensure that there is no disease, pregnancy or other physical damage in need of surgical repair or other medical intervention .

Your sympathy lies entirely with accused males. You continue to allege that the rape victim in the article linked in this thread lied because there were some inconsistencies in her accounting if her attack, even though it was later proven that the attacker raped other women using the same method of accessing victims. Including her.

One major inconsistency, with things diverging from that point.

I would not mind small flaws, memory is fallible. But two substantially different paths, one must be false. Most favorable interpretation is that she doesn't remember and is making it up rather than say she doesn't remember.

Wow. The fault is with the female.

Men are incapable of fault or malice or violence. Or, it seems, of rape. Unless of course he is black.

So if the victim is male and the rapist is make, who’s the liar.

 

[Toni]

No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.

How about expelled from university without due process?

No one has suggested that anyone be convicted of anything without proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all legal rights observed, legal counsel provided, etc.

But they weren't convicted, just expelled. A convenient way to avoid having to prove guilt. But major punishment anyway.

The government keeps looking for ways of bypassing the concept of having to prove it.

This is one such example (the universities were acting as encouraged by the government).

Pushing the payment system to shun industries. Look at the porn market: incest-themed stuff suddenly shifted to step-incest themed. Again, the government was behind that.

Some places it costs you more to challenge a ticket than the fine--and it's court costs that you don't get back even if you prevail. Or what happened to a former coworker--ex lied about child support. The government was after him to repay what they had paid her--didn't matter that it was an open-and-shut case, proving he didn't owe the money would cost more than paying it, and he wouldn't recover costs if he fought it.

We switched to the millimeter wave scanners at the airport. It's been proven in a real world situation that you can smuggle small metal items past them, and it has been shown theoretically that you can't see explosives carefully feathered onto the body. Combine those, they have basically no chance against a well-disguised bomb that would have been caught by the metal detector. Security went down--but the scanners stop money mules carrying cash on their body. Somehow I find this highly suspicious. (Millimeter wave is better at detecting a clumsy bomb, but to date every attack has been by means that security could not catch--don't assume a stupid adversary!)

And, on a related note: CBP conducting searches pretty much anywhere (within 100 miles of a border--but international airports are borders) without a warrant. I drove through one of their traps once--directed everyone off the highway at a rest stop, one lane going past a bunch of equipment. No indication of what was going on but it makes no sense other than as an electronic search of the car. Nope, cops are free to use cameras without a warrant but any form of sensory augmentation (but not simply magnification) requires a warrant.

I'm sure this list is far from complete, it's just what comes to mind at the moment.

I think that (some) men have a pretty vested interest in believing that women lie about rape. Otherwise, they might have to think poorly of some of their buddies or even of themselves.

Doesn't mean all of us. I have never been in a situation with the slightest doubt about consent.

Thinking of young adults abd teens, I think that there definitely can be some room for differing perceptions. Certainly judgement can be clouded by growing sexual urgency coupled with lack of general life and sex experience.. it would be lovely to think that couples are deeply in puppy love and heavily invested in their partners well being but honestly, young, inexperienced, flooded with hormones: people do not perceive situations the save way.

Which underscores the need for enthusiastic consent. A more passive person might withdraw emotionally if they are overwhelmed and reluctant it avoids t and a more dominant person could see acquiescence as consent instead of fear and not knowing what to do to get out if a situation. We’re talking heat if the mom t decisions being made without much actual thought process.

Withdrawing would be neutral, not positive.

Emotional withdrawal is not neutral. It is the same thing as freezing, seeking to avoid a confrontation/danger.

It would look neutral to an observer and that's the viewpoint we were talking about.

If a student is caught cheating, they are frequently subjected to discipline, including expulsion. If a student is found to be guilty of theft on campus, instead of pressing charges with the police, the student is often expelled or at least, expelled from on campus housing.

Schools have no real concept of a fair trial. Life changing decisions being made by amateurs. Some of us have a problem with that.

If a student is credibly accused of sexual assault, the victim is heavily discouraged from going to the police. In general, rape victims who go to the police are quite frequently discouraged from pressing charges.

Occasionally the accused is not expelled but is expected to move to a different t firm, assuming on campus housing ( which is less frequent these days). They may also be expected to alter their class schedule so that the victim does not have to see them in class. These are far short of expulsion which is still far far short of being charged with rape. The accused can move in with their life without the weight of a conviction to interfere with their future careers or housing options.

Which often is a de-facto expulsion. Before any attempt to determine the truth and with no recourse if the allegation is found false.

In any case, the victim has to live with what happened, often has little or no say in what disciplinary or criminal charges are filed against their attacker. They must endure invasive exams to ensure that there is no disease, pregnancy or other physical damage in need of surgical repair or other medical intervention .

Your sympathy lies entirely with accused males. You continue to allege that the rape victim in the article linked in this thread lied because there were some inconsistencies in her accounting if her attack, even though it was later proven that the attacker raped other women using the same method of accessing victims. Including her.

One major inconsistency, with things diverging from that point.

I would not mind small flaws, memory is fallible. But two substantially different paths, one must be false. Most favorable interpretation is that she doesn't remember and is making it up rather than say she doesn't remember.

It does not matter to you that it was proven she was raped. That the police were proven to be at fault with not pursuing her claim of rape

Wow