How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[Lion IRC]

How many people coming forward claiming they experienced a miracle before you believe in miracles? 11+

 

[ruby sparks]

If an accuser, even just one, admits they're guilty, I'd tend to believe them. Why would someone lie about that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

Yup. Sheer numbers would be very meaningful if they were truly independent. (Note my prior proposal regarding sealed reports.) However, in practice we can't be sure of independence.

Thus how much independent corroboration is available makes a big difference, as well as how the accused reacts. Kavanaugh's reaction made me pretty sure he's guilty and since then I came upon another damning bit: Ford provided a lot of details about the situation. While they do nothing to prove an assault they basically prove the party existed and she was there. If nothing of importance happened why would she remember the details now? Thus we can be pretty sure something happened that really left an impression. If it were something positive why isn't anyone else aware of it? Thus it's something negative--almost certainly an assault. Why not figure she correctly named her assailants?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believed Juanita Broaddrick and other allegations against Clinton and I'm generally considered to be a liberal (American version). Granted, I never cared for Bill before the allegations which did not improve my opinion.

Something to keep in mind here: The allegations against Clinton were being driven by the Republicans and at least in some cases being bankrolled by the Republicans. There was nothing resembling independence and nothing but unverifiable testimony. While there's no doubt he was a womanizer I see no reason to think the allegations of stepping over the line were anything other than political dirty tricks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Things have changed a lot since then.

And a lot of it for the worse.
There is no real evidence K-man tried to rape anybody.
Ford can't remember where or when the supposed assault happened and coached somebody on passing a polygraph before.

But her claims match up with exactly one event on Kavanaugh's calendar and she correctly described the house in question. She gave a lot of verifiable facts and every one of them matches reality. You have that sort of memory of an ordinary party 30 years ago??

 

[Jarhyn]

How many people coming forward claiming they experienced a miracle before you believe in miracles? 11+

This canard again? (Probably not) For the last time, uncommon things happen all the time. Everything that happens is unlikely, especially when we are talking about things with as many degrees of freedom as LIFE. When you roll a million sided dice, the odds of you getting that result were ALWAYS one in a million, and with life, that dice has trillions of sides. Further, that dice gets rolled so many times a day, constantly, for all of us, that some of those results seem bizarre and fortuitous. "Miracles" as one in a million or even one in a billion events are COMMON, and must be. And because they stand out against all the shitty results, we talk about them, and hold them as precious gems of positive experience. But they are just the corollary to the rule of large numbers, when viewed statistically.

I'm not saying to not take joy when good things happen. Rather I am saying don't ascribe agency to the good things other than the agent that is you and the people around you.

Edit: and one of the things that has done incalculable damage to my enjoyment of 'fantasy' settings is that to invoke gods or devils or the supernatural as agents to good things happening is that it steals credit from all the PEOPLE who have worked so hard to bring those good results, and takes culpability from all those who contributed to BAD results.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

Yup. Victims are not credible. Even if she reported this the day it happened, the boys deny and that’s that. Male privilege I suppose.

Men seem to be smart enough to know not to sexually assault women in front of disinterested third parties.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

Yup. Sheer numbers would be very meaningful if they were truly independent. (Note my prior proposal regarding sealed reports.) However, in practice we can't be sure of independence.

Thus how much independent corroboration is available makes a big difference, as well as how the accused reacts. Kavanaugh's reaction made me pretty sure he's guilty and since then I came upon another damning bit: Ford provided a lot of details about the situation. While they do nothing to prove an assault they basically prove the party existed and she was there. If nothing of importance happened why would she remember the details now? Thus we can be pretty sure something happened that really left an impression. If it were something positive why isn't anyone else aware of it? Thus it's something negative--almost certainly an assault. Why not figure she correctly named her assailants?

I find that extremely underwhelming. She could remember details for a wide variety of reasons, and who says those details are correct? This is hardly good evidence that he did anything wrong, even if they both were there at the same place and time (and even that isn't established).

What we have is a whole swath of American society believing a man committed sexual assault, and calling for his head, because somebody accused him, and very little else.

Now, if we actually had some independent witnesses who were there, provide details that were consistent with one another, or somebody who kept a diary mentioning this, etc, we'd have something to go on. It would help if she had complained to somebody about it then, but that isn't necessary. Other witnesses and corroborating accounts could go a long long way. But there are none. The Democrats have every reason to be biased against this man, perhaps more than any other accused in modern history. And it shows.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

Yup. Victims are not credible. Even if she reported this the day it happened, the boys deny and that’s that.

A mere accusation is not enough. Correct. Imagine if our courts functioned in that way, finding an accused guilty simply because he is accused and the accuser named a day and place it happened along with a few details the police can't know if they are true or not. Glad they don't. But public opinion does.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

Yup. Victims are not credible. Even if she reported this the day it happened, the boys deny and that’s that.

A mere accusation is not enough. Correct. Imagine if our courts functioned in that way, finding an accused guilty simply because he is accused and the accuser named a day and place it happened along with a few details the police can't know if they are true or not. Glad they don't. But public opinion does.

Goodness you are reading deaf.

 

[Opoponax]

If ever a movement needed a heart to the knife, it's #MeToo. That, and #BLM.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show that Mr. Jones was killed when Mr. Smith used his 6 inch hunting heart, to deliberately, and with premeditation, stab Mr. Jones right in the knife with the intent to murder him...

Seriously though, the OP's question isn't worthy of legitimate consideration. It's anti-evidence, and anti-logic. It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail where they want to burn the woman for being a witch. Everyone in the crowd is screaming that she did something, but none of the accusers are credible in the slightest.

This isn't about numbers, it's about (as others have mentioned) credibility. Even then, some kind of supporting evidence is required.

If one of my daughters came to me and said she'd been sexually assaulted, one of the first things I'd do is call the police so that evidence of the attack could be recorded. That doesn't indicate I'd be doubting my kid; rather, it indicates that the evidence needs to be recorded. This is because I know that without evidence, the culprit is going to go free.

Now, if you're talking about decades-old allegations, then credibility takes a deep dive. People's memories are imperfect to say the least. Innocent people have been sent to prison by the very victim in the case who wrongly identified them as their attacker. The victim may have an honest, sincere belief in what they remember, but often it's the case they remember wrongly.

In the end, it's all about circumstances. Trying to put a number to it is quite wrongheaded.

 

[blastula]

Correct. Imagine if our courts functioned in that way, finding an accused guilty simply because he is accused and the accuser named a day and place it happened along with a few details the police can't know if they are true or not. Glad they don't. But public opinion does.

Our courts do operate that way. One person's testimony is enough to convict someone if the jury believes them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Correct. Imagine if our courts functioned in that way, finding an accused guilty simply because he is accused and the accuser named a day and place it happened along with a few details the police can't know if they are true or not. Glad they don't. But public opinion does.

Our courts do operate that way. One person's testimony is enough to convict someone if the jury believes them.

Really? A mere accusation with no corroborating evidence of any sort can get your court to convict someone? I didn't realize your country's courts were so unfair.

 

[blastula]

Yes, testimony in court subject to cross examination is enough. The accused gets a defense you know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

is drive a knife into the heart of the "Me Too" moment.

If ever a movement needed a heart to the knife, it's #MeToo. That, and #BLM.

The list goes on, and with the exception of the President, all it took for your career to be over is a woman (or several) coming forward to tattle on your indiscretions.

And do you think that's a good state of affairs? Really?

I think the Tinman is mixing up their saying.

 

[ZiprHead]

Correct. Imagine if our courts functioned in that way, finding an accused guilty simply because he is accused and the accuser named a day and place it happened along with a few details the police can't know if they are true or not. Glad they don't. But public opinion does.

Our courts do operate that way. One person's testimony is enough to convict someone if the jury believes them.

Really? A mere accusation with no corroborating evidence of any sort can get your court to convict someone? I didn't realize your country's courts were so unfair.

Citation please that Canadian courts are differant in that aspect.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Correct. Imagine if our courts functioned in that way, finding an accused guilty simply because he is accused and the accuser named a day and place it happened along with a few details the police can't know if they are true or not. Glad they don't. But public opinion does.

Our courts do operate that way. One person's testimony is enough to convict someone if the jury believes them.

Really? A mere accusation with no corroborating evidence of any sort can get your court to convict someone? I didn't realize your country's courts were so unfair.

I remember hearing the Prosecutor explaining to the prospective jury pool that real life wasn't like CSI and the evidence available for the cases were never that in depth. In other words, we were going to need to take the Cops' words for it.

 

[ronburgundy]

A rational answer depends upon full consideration of the plausibility of various explanations for the accusations, and that plausibility depends upon various contextual factors and details, including who both the accuser and accused are, their relation to each other, motivations for dishonesty, any type of corroboration, time elapse and other factors that produce errors in memory, etc..
The number of accusers is one of many factors, and it can carry a lot or little weight depending upon the context, like whether they know each other, whether the accused is famous and there is some reason multiple people would share a motive to lie about them, etc..

IOW, all the same kind of things I consider when believing anyone about anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't the number of accusers that i find convincing. It is the corroborating evidence from disinterested third parties, and even moreso, the evidence that is not witness based.

Statements or writings made before the accusation(s) are also very helpful, which is why it makes sense to document things when they happen.

Yup. Victims are not credible. Even if she reported this the day it happened, the boys deny and that’s that.

A mere accusation is not enough.

Has a friend of yours ever confided such a secret with you? About a sexual assault they had suffered from? Maybe you are lucky to not know anyone who has suffered such a thing. But seriously, this whole, the victim's statement is virtually meaningless is absurd. There are a number of things that come into play when it comes to trusting someone's word. And when someone shared that rather dark secret of their past with me, the first thing that doesn't come to mind is, "Well, I'm going to need evidence."

I was able to base my judgement on her claim based on my knowledge of her, the openness of her, and what she said to be confident she was telling me the truth. A truth that isn't very easy to share.

Goodness help me if my daughter suffers such an injustice in her life, and shares it with me... once again, most likely not going to be asking for evidence. Sure, the Police would because prosecuting sex crimes is very hard because they rarely happen in public and the men are believed by default short of substantial injury. But me, I can use that large honking organ in my skull and come to a conclusion that bound with logic and sustainable.

Dr. Ford was most likely sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in the early 80s. I believe this due to her testimony's grip, minute details that would require a Pulitzer prize author to make up, the trail of it coming to light for several years and Brett Kavanaugh's belligerent and entitled performance including fake crying. Dr. Ford's testimony was designed to inform, Kavanaugh's was designed to deflect and misdirect.

One can only think Dr. Ford is telling the truth, mistaken, lying, or one can do something even worse, sit on a fence and lie to themselves that is a logical position.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A rational answer depends upon full consideration of the plausibility of various explanations for the accusations, and that plausibility depends upon various contextual factors and details, including who both the accuser and accused are, their relation to each other, motivations for dishonesty, any type of corroboration, time elapse and other factors that produce errors in memory, etc..
The number of accusers is one of many factors, and it can carry a lot or little weight depending upon the context, like whether they know each other, whether the accused is famous and there is some reason multiple people would share a motive to lie about them, etc..

IOW, all the same kind of things I consider when believing anyone about anything.

But there does seem to be a number for the public. You get the first accusation, which gets refuted immediately. Then a second and third. People perk their ears up. It is usually a swell of accusations after the third refuting that leads to the public biting into that the first one might be telling the truth. What is odd is that Trump even defied that generality.