I know this does not help, but that is not how trauma works for everyone. I have a great memory for trauma. I can tell you what I was wearing the night I had a friend die in my arms. I can tell you what everything felt like, smelled like, I can list her injuries, and tell you what I said.
But I never remember the date it happened. I know it happened not too far from exams, and it was warm out, but not much more than that. I do not remember what the car looked like that hit her, or the plate number.
The simple fact is, you don’t know how your brain will deal with trauma until you experience it (but I hope you don’t), but more and more police are taking training in forensic interviewing trauma victims.
I don’t know the first time my ex hit me, but I remember the last. Memory in trauma varies so much from person to person.
Also? We know Trump lies ALL THE TIME about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. The only times he seems to tell the truth is when it falls out of his ever-flapping mouth by accident. I mean, there’s a limit to words in the English language and an even smaller limit to his vocabulary, so at some point he’s going to blurt out the truth because he can’t shut up. Anyway, why should he be given any benefit of the doubt by the TWENTY-SECOND woman to accuse him of assault? When we have a tape of him admitting assault in one of his word-vomit episodes? Why does she get examined under a microscope when there is absolutely nothing about him that warrants giving him the (non-legal, this isn’t court) benefit of the doubt?
All this is ridiculous. According to our resident posters on this subject, you should always believe the accuser and the accused is guilty until proven innocent. There is no due process in the court of public opinion or on this board.
There is nothing an accuser can say or do that would give an indication of a false allegation because she acts that way because of her “trauma” which is simple question begging because we don’t know that she has any trauma.
Okay. No. That is not what anyone is saying. Support the accuser. That does not mean lock up the accused and throw away the key. You can actually support someone independently of the investigation process.
I know. Crazy, right?
In this case, there is not even a likelihood of Trump being convicted of anything because there is no investigation. I am not even talking about the dozens of other accusers - what I am saying is that her inability to remember a date does not mean it did not happen, and that her story has a loud ring of truth for me.
Victimology when it comes to sexual assault is not my opinion, this is fact, and police, DAs and judges are taking training to better understand it.
Thank you. That truly means a lot to me. Especially since we disagree. I get so tired of being told how terrible and awful I am by people who disagree with me. It’s nice that you like me even though you disagree.
I recognize some of what you are saying. Rape is an especially heinous crime because, like murder, it is a crime against your person. We put a lot of baggage on the reproductive act and people attach shame to a victim of rape. The victim may even do so to herself. I understand that it is difficult to come forward, and that doings so can be an awful experience, requiring justification, submitting yourself to judgement. The police can be unsympathetic. I get it. As much as I can as a man.
I read that whole article. It cites another study that says that rapes are five times more likely to be falsely reported than other crimes, and says this is wrong, but doesn’t really explain it well. I doubt we will know what the real number is because as the article mentions, rapes are underreported.
I get what you are saying about the difficulty of reporting and proving rape versus consensual sex. I agree. It’s one of the things that makes rape one of the worst crimes there is. Worse still is that it is often committed by people with power authority or who have standing or in a position of trust.
But, I think you would agree with me that false accusations do occur, not just of rape but all kinds of crimes. The standards I put in place for how seriously I take an accusation just don’t apply to rape they apply to any serious accusation of wrongdoing.
I agree that what a victim has to go through sucks, but I feel strongly that the standard of proof needs to be a high one.
In my professional life I have had to deal with several very unpleasant situations. One employee sexually assaulted another and touched her inappropriately in front of witnesses. He was terminated. The sickening thing was that she quit shortly later because she just couldn’t bear that her coworkers had seen this happen to her, though they were universally sympathetic. She couldn’t stand to come in any more. This was not a rape. It was still incredibly traumatic.
We also had a case where a coworker said he was assaulted by another worker. It turned out that this happened near the entry way where there was a security camera. This camera showed the incident and supported the person who was accused’s Side of the story which was that the accuser had been aggressive and he had backed off. The person who was accused was still put on leave during the investigation, and our lawyers pointed out that we needed to be very careful about this video evidence as the camera was supposed to be trained just on the entry way as an anti theft device. What it covered was more than it should and may have been at odds with the expectation off privacy of the employees. Corporate was not happy that I had viewed the security footage for a non security event. The HR person who came did something masterful to navigate this minefield of liability. She asked the accuser “What would you say if I told you that there was a witness present Who says that you started the altercation and the other person backed off, but that you had a good reason for telling the story the way that you did. What was that reason?” I paraphrase. He then immediately explained why he made the false accusation.
I think that as unpleasant and unfair as my standards (and the laws’) are they are the best of a lot of rotten alternatives. False accusations do occur. Not all accusations are equal. We have to evaluate them rigorously and seriously.
The fact that it has been incredibly difficult for women to come forward and receive justice when they have been raped or sexually assaulted is not a good reason to lower the standards of proof or exempt the presumption of innocence.
I think we can and should do much better for victims and we should live in a climate where any victim of a crime should feel absolutely comfortable coming forward immediately without fear of reprisal, provided they are doing so in good faith.
Considering the time period, I’m unconvinced. The justice system at the time was not exactly welcoming and fair to women who make claims of rape. Which is a big part of why women don’t want to come forward - they’re likely to be called liars, no matter the truth of their account. I have trouble believing such statistics would be any more reflective of the truth than crime statistics about black people in Alabama in the 1940s.
There’s no evidence she is lying, and yet many posters in this thread are implying or outright saying that she’s a liar.
All that is being asked is that rape and sexual assault accusations be taken seriously, and that accusers not be dismissed, attacked, or denigrated, barring proof of dishonesty. Many posters in this thread are failing that.
You’ve created a conundrum. By that same logic we should not denigrate, imply, or state that Trump is a rapist unless there is proof that he is. There is no proof or evidence that he is lying when he says he didn’t do it.
You can’t have it both ways. Frankly, I just think people should feel free to evaluate the evidence and state their opinion. I for one believe all of the following:
Trump is horrible towards women. His character and actions in this regard are despicable and indefensible.
This accusation is made up to sell books. She won’t go to the police or release the coat for forensic analysis because she does not want to get Smolletted.
False accusations occur, the rich famous and powerful are magnets for such.
Rich famous and powerful people are often take advantage of their positions of power.
The standards of proof needed before an accused suffer consequences need to be very high.
We need to do a better job making good faith accusers feel comfortable so that they will come forward immediately. Our failure to do so, and the stigma we attach to victims is inexcusable.
Beto speaking Spanish last night and Booker copying him was the most embarrassing political spectacle that I have seen this week.
I know people who were sexually abused as children by close relatives, but they didn’t report them to any authorities. Fear of retaliation. Fear of being blamed. Fear of not being believed. Didn’t want to destroy their families. Shame. All of these emotions and concerns drove them to stay quiet. Has nothing to do with them not taking their “accusation seriously”.
I can’t imagine shrugging off their experiences because they wrongly or rightly felt the costs benefits of reporting was not in their favor.
What does it mean for you to take an “accusation seriously”, when all we’re talking about is commentary on a message board? No one is expecting you to run out and get a noose for Trump. All that *might *be expected of you is to not contribute to the climate of shaming, ridicule, and maliciousness that, ironically, causes victims of sexual abuse to stay silent.
Multiple posters in this thread have recounted instances of sexual assault; I don’t know if they notified the cops, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t. Think hard about what you’ve just expressed to them.
Of course he raped her. Of course no one cares. Of course men will think she’s lying. Of course of course of course. If I had to choose anyone in the world who’s a likely rapist he would be in the top five and I don’t have any idea who the others would be.
The standard of proof for conviction NEEDS to be high. Agreed completely.
False accusations do occur, but unlike every other crime (or so it may seem) rape is one of the only ones that you need to prove you were a victim of - again, even though the rate of false reporting is less or the same, no one immediately accuses any other crime victim of lying. This is a problem.
Also, false reports sometimes get included with “unfounded”. Not the same thing. Up until DNA testing became more widely used most stranger rapes were binned - since the likelihood of catching the offender was low, and marital rape was not even a crime until not that long ago (in Canada I think it was in the 80s).
It is possible to support the victim without vilifying the accused. The survivor can get help, counseling, etc with the understand that clearly SOMETHING happened to them.
Finally, no. Vanilla is the best flavour, with special attention to vanilla bourbon bean.
You are either completely and obviously wrong or else I just don’t quite get what you mean. I kind of think you always have to prove that a crime happened when you make an accusation. Do you mean that rape requires special challenges to proof in some circumstances? I agree. A woman who is beaten and raped by a stranger she never met and who bears evidence of the attack is going to have an easy job convincing a policemen she was raped (at least I hope so.) A woman who was raped by her boyfriend with whom she had previously had consensual sex might have a more difficult time. She might not receive the sympathy and consideration she deserves. Is that what you mean?
I agree. Do you agree that this is not exactly what is happening with this person seems to be doing?
That is a good rebuttal. I would counter with this: