UVa gang rape accusations

[cabiness42]

Note the highlighted.

 

I keep coming back to this in several threads. You are demanding that people have a standard of accuracy in memory that the human mind is simply not built to do. People cannot recall exact details of important things, let alone things that happen during exceedingly traumatic events. If someone attempted to do a full, honest investigation of the case, they'd probably find that the memory of everyone involved was equally fuzzy, because that's how memory works.

 

Again, if you adopt that standard, you are right on the verge of making rape legal because everyone will have an inconsistent story. The only one who has no inconsistencies in their story is probably the one telling the boldest lie. Is there a solution? Well, I'm totally not sure and I have no good answer on this one.

 

I do agree with you on one point though. The Rolling Stone seems like they have a good chance of actually having written an article about a rape victim on the UVA campus. However, once the magazine published that article, they began relying on the assumption that this particular person's memory is fully accurate, which is the same mistake you're making in demanding that standard of accuracy. They're putting their reputation on the line for the memory of this person and whatever details they were able to confirm 2 years later, and so yeah, they deserve some significant criticism for that.

 

So yeah, in those shoes, I can say I almost certainly would not have published that article, but not because I don't believe the person, but instead because I don't believe a participant in a tragic event will be able to give accurate enough testimony to stand up to the scrutiny of the entire world.

 

I would never demand that the victim have a standard of accuracy in order to file a criminal complaint with the police, but I would demand that there be a standard of accuracy before a journalist publishes the victim's story. I would think that the UVa frat is going to get a nice settlement from the magazine over this.

[southsider2k5]

Note the highlighted.

 

I keep coming back to this in several threads. You are demanding that people have a standard of accuracy in memory that the human mind is simply not built to do. People cannot recall exact details of important things, let alone things that happen during exceedingly traumatic events. If someone attempted to do a full, honest investigation of the case, they'd probably find that the memory of everyone involved was equally fuzzy, because that's how memory works.

 

Again, if you adopt that standard, you are right on the verge of making rape legal because everyone will have an inconsistent story. The only one who has no inconsistencies in their story is probably the one telling the boldest lie. Is there a solution? Well, I'm totally not sure and I have no good answer on this one.

 

I do agree with you on one point though. The Rolling Stone seems like they have a good chance of actually having written an article about a rape victim on the UVA campus. However, once the magazine published that article, they began relying on the assumption that this particular person's memory is fully accurate, which is the same mistake you're making in demanding that standard of accuracy. They're putting their reputation on the line for the memory of this person and whatever details they were able to confirm 2 years later, and so yeah, they deserve some significant criticism for that.

 

So yeah, in those shoes, I can say I almost certainly would not have published that article, but not because I don't believe the person, but instead because I don't believe a participant in a tragic event will be able to give accurate enough testimony to stand up to the scrutiny of the entire world.

 

Yet that is exactly what riots are happening in MO over.

[Balta1701]

Yet that is exactly what riots are happening in MO over.

I agree. Way too many people took the well-rehearsed, well-polished officer's statement as complete fact when it shouldn't have been viewed that way.

 

There should have been a real investigation by an independent prosecutor to actually attempt to put together a real picture of the witness statements. Things like "Who could actually have seen what they said they saw, how does that square with the final position of the shot", "can we verify anyone else in real-time saying "he had his ****ing hands up" right after the shot". That's why a special prosecutor should have been appointed, to do that investigation. There should have been a skeptical cross-examination of the officer's statement too.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree. Way too many people took the well-rehearsed, well-polished officer's statement as complete fact when it shouldn't have been viewed that way.

 

There should have been a real investigation by an independent prosecutor to actually attempt to put together a real picture of the witness statements. Things like "Who could actually have seen what they said they saw, how does that square with the final position of the shot", "can we verify anyone else in real-time saying "he had his ****ing hands up" right after the shot". That's why a special prosecutor should have been appointed, to do that investigation. There should have been a skeptical cross-examination of the officer's statement too.

 

1) A special prosecutor coming in after the fact wouldn't have changed Wilson's version of what happened.

 

2) The GJ heard from all of the witnesses in person. It's not like the prosecutor was providing them with a summary of statements.

 

[Balta1701]

1) A special prosecutor coming in after the fact wouldn't have changed Wilson's version of what happened.

 

2) The GJ heard from all of the witnesses in person. It's not like the prosecutor was providing them with a summary of statements.

However there was no effort to put together an actual picture of what happened from a point of view with any skepticism of the officer's statement. Furthermore, the so-called prosecution asked leading questions to make sure the officer filled in details regarding his point of view (at this point did he rush back towards you?) while casting doubt on the testimony of others who disagreed (you've previously been convicted of a felony, is that correct?).

 

A full investigation would have, instead of just dumping witnesses on a jury indiscriminantly, actually attempted to put together a story of what happened. "Could witness 6 have seen this given their position?" "Which of them confirm the appropriate distance from the vehicle"? "These 3 are on camera afterwards so we know their rough position". I couldn't pull that off in a grand jury setting but that's what should have happened and didn't because the prosecutor had no interest in challenging the memory of the shooter.

 

That is of course on top of clear improprieties like the officer's statement never being taken, the officer filing his own weapon as evidence, etc.

[LittleHurt05]

"Jackie's" friends are claiming that she made up the boy she supposedly had a date with in order to make another friend jealous.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/educat..._washingtonpost

[StrangeSox]

For whatever it's worth, her real name was outed and it actually is Jackie.

[LittleHurt05]

For whatever it's worth, her real name was outed and it actually is Jackie.

 

So you are saying she's an even worse liar than the story makes it seem

[StrangeSox]

what?

 

edit: and her friends still maintain that something had obviously happened to her:

 

The friends said they were never contacted or interviewed by the pop culture magazine’s reporters or editors. Although vilified in the article as coldly indifferent to Jackie’s ordeal, the students said they cared deeply about their friend’s well-being and safety. Randall said that they made every effort to help Jackie that night.

 

“She had very clearly just experienced a horrific trauma,” Randall said. “I had never seen anybody acting like she was on that night before, and I really hope I never have to again. . . . If she was acting on the night of Sept. 28, 2012, then she deserves an Oscar.”

Edited December 11, 2014 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

So you are saying she's an even worse liar than the story makes it seem

 

He's saying quotes aren't necessary anymore.

[LittleHurt05]

He's saying quotes aren't necessary anymore.

 

Gotcha. I was implying that she couldn't even lie about her name correctly to the reporter.

 

Something obviously happened to her, but it might not have been at UVA, it might not have been sexual assault. It may just be issues at home, that have her looking for attention in any way possible.

[EvilMonkey]

Just an interesting read.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-do...-be-victimized/

 

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

 

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

 

Even more striking is that according to the BJS data, the likelihood of sexual assault has actually been trending downward across the board since 1997.

[StrangeSox]

That's good news if that study is accurate. Disheartening that 80% of college and 62% of non-college sexual assault crimes go unreported, though.

[StrangeSox]

This study and the previous study used different definitions for what counts as sexual assault, so that probably accounts for a majority of the difference.