The Duke accuser claimed she was raped back in 1996; the case was never brought to court.
This poor girl just cannot get away from the gang rapists!
The other one was just as bad – she was raped “for a continual time” in the middle of the street.
But none of this (just like the statistics) has any predictive value as to the credibility of this particular unlikely report. NONE OF IT!
I wonder if her first three gang-rapists were white too.
Talk about buzzard’s luck. Most of us get through life without being gang-raped once. This poor girl . . . .
“Nifong refused comment.” I just bet he did (180 degrees from what he was doing before the DNA results).
I’d really like to know the circumstances behind that. She made the accusation to police 3-4 years after the alleged rape occured. Why did she suddenly decide to come forward? Was she just young and scared, and finally got the courage?
Or was she talking to police for some other reason, like she was in trouble herself, and brought this up as a distraction from her own problems?
The way she told police would big difference as to how much this new information she be weighed in the current case.
The problem I have with the earlier accusation: according to her claim, it would have happened when she was 14. A 14-year old girl gang-raped ? That is a heinous crime, and I have to believe that it would have been as aggressively pursued as this case has been, if not more so.
The father, btw, has been quoted as saying that the guys didn’t do anything to her:
One other question I have: The second dancer recently gave her first for-the-record press interview, in which she said she didn’t know what went on in the bathroom, but that her ‘honest-to-God impression’ :rolleyes: was that (the players) were guilty. Most of the articles noted that pretty much at the same time, the second dancer also contacted a NY PR firm on how to ‘spin’ the case ‘to her advantage’, and that a judge agreed to waive a 15% payment to a bonding agent from an earlier case involving the second dancer.
Most of the articles suggested that the second dancer might be receiving favorable treatment for changing her story, since she had originally told the defense that she doubted the accuser’s story.
But I haven’t seen any earlier cites suggesting that the second dancer originally didn’t support the accuser - has anyone seen anything?
Don’t be an ass Huerta88. Plenty have people have said there is reason to think she’s lying - hell I said so before the whole tangent about statistics ever came up.
Yes, it very much seems like she’s lying. IMO, she made up the whole story.
But just because she’s lying doesn’t mean that your argument about statistics has been validated. The broad nationwide statistics about interracial rape don’t have predictive value in a particular case (or any particular case, not just this one).
In each individual case, you look at the evidence. Of course, her inconsistent story, the alibi for the accused players, and other information - actual facts specific to this case - do have great value.
I’m looking less like an ass than the Tawana-told-the-truth-and-Huerta-loves-Hitler crowd, who’ve been (can’t imagine why) a lot less in evidence of late.
Your arguments are what they are. If she fabricated a previous gang rape (IF), I could argue that that has NOTHING to do with the (real if faint) possibility that a very unlikely actual gang rape happened to her now. The past is prologue but not conclusively determinative, and all that.
Well, I can only respond for myself, not the rest of the “crowd” :rolleyes:
I was involved in the thread mainly in regard your tangent about statistics. Since that conversation petered out, I stopped responding to the thread (although I’ve been reading it). Lately the thread has been updates on the newest information regarding this case.
Also, if you haven’t notice, this thread is now 13 pages long. I wouldn’t expect people to hang around that long, when the sub-discussion they were involved with ended a couple pages ago.
Yes my arguments are what they are, but if you re-read my post, I gave several reasons for thinking she’s lying (her inconsistent story about what happened, and the players’ alibis) but I did not mention her previous (possibly fabricated) gang rape allegation. Although I agree with you - it is not conclusively determinative of her lying in this current case.
No you still look like an ass, just an ass that guessed right. It wasn’t even so much a guess, really; it was more of a knee-jerk prejudice reaction, based on your opinions of strippers. Those are, BTW, pretty yucky. Up to now you had no “evidence” but interested parties saying things that furthered their interests.
The thing that seems lost to you is that no one in this thread has said that the accuser is telling the truth. There’s been plenty of posters saying or implying that she is lying. But no one saying “Tawana told the truth”.
It is a strike against her credibility, so if she has lied in the past about a similar situation, it’s reasonable to regard her claims with skepticism. Her being a liar doesn’t affect the likelihood of a certain event occuring, but it does have something to do with the likelihood that she is being honest about what happened to her. These are two different things. Can you grasp this?
I’ll ask an expert:
*Magic 8 ball, can Huerta88 grasp this difference?
::shakes ball::*
oh well, you tried.
What none of you seem to be picking up on is the broader point that (1) evaluating her credibility and (2) evaluating the likelihood of a given event having actually happened and (3) evaluating the plausibility of a given allegation being in fact true are at some level (from our perspective) all proxies for each other. If she is lying, then the unlikely allegation is not true and the event did not happen. On the other hand, if we had a lot of evidence that the event happened, it would not matter if she were the world’s biggest pathological liar. If we had a lot of evidence that she’d never lied, it would matter less that the event she alleges is statistically unlikely. If we had a lot of evidence that the event she alleges is an especially common pattern, it would matter (incrementally) less if there were less evidence available in this particular case. That is, in making a priori handicappings of these sort of things, we always do so (and the law, as a practical matter, does so) on a “sliding scale” basis taking into account all known factors.
Of course they are all “guesses,” educated ones informed by our experience and knowledge of what does and doesn’t happen in the world (liars sometimes lie, men rarely bite dogs, etc.).
And the prosecutor is making educated guesses, too, it’s just that I’m not sure they are educated at all, to judge by this truly, monumentally moronic development:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/28/D8H93TA80.html
What kind of retard gets out of law school and yet could still believe that the mention of this earlier report constitutes “sexual history” as opposed to “history of making allegations of questionable plausibility?”
He sounds desperate, like even he feels the wheels are falling off.
and I don’t think you have any basis for guessing what I (or others) may or may not know/be picking up on. Your capability for delusional and illogical thought is really quite impressive.
Personal history of fabrication is always a factor in judging reliability of current testimony. It, of course, is not proof. It would be something to evaluate though.
Crime stats give valuable information. If I was considering moving to an area, that is indeed one piece of information that I would like to use to evaluate the general tendencies in that area. It will, however, give absolutely no valid information wrt “did this single event happen as claimed”.
What seems especially ironic to me is that all of your claims about how often fake allegations occur seem to be culled from one or two very limited pieces of work, yet you’re more than willing to utilize this flawed data to evaluate this entirely different event. You focused on “how often false rape claims are made on college campuses” (based on the aforementioned limited data), and “how often are white males convicted of raping black females” while ignoring other data that didn’t support your hypothesis (most particularly the data about “when there is a conviction for gang rape, what’s the data wrt the racial characterisitiics of perps, which showed way more white males than any other group). So you cherry picked your data, focusing on the fact that it happened with college students (as opposed to on a campus), and the accused were white males and the accuser was a black female (instead of other factors - such as “gang rape” or 'relative age of victims” both of which would have, in your crazy view, led more credability to the accuser for example)
It is your absolutely mindboggling misunderstanding of the proper way to use statisical information that is the basis of my (personal) derision of you in this thread. I’m not asking ( and please don’t tell me- I’m too scared to know) how old you are, what your educational background is, what your job is etc. If I found that you were over 15 years old, had a degree and were gainfully employed in any professional capacity, I fear that I might fall into a depression so deep as to require medication.
Actually, all three of those things are very different and wouldn’t be considered interchangables by someone familiar with critical thinking. I’ll show you why with a simple hypothetical. Consider a bag containing four balls, a blue, a white, a red, and a yellow.
There’s a 25% chance that I will pull out a blue ball. It doesn’t matter if I’m a pathological liar or if I’m the Pope. There’s a 25% chance that I will pull out a blue.
If I’m someone who, in previous pulling-a-ball-out-of-a-bag exercises, lied about which color I withdrew, even though there’s a 25% chance that the ball in my hand is blue there’s sufficient reason to not believe me when I say it is blue. Because my credibility is bad, my word can not be trusted.
It is not unlikely or implausible that someone–even a liar–would pull out a blue ball. So if someone says that the ball is blue, an eyebrow should not be raised on that basis alone. Such a claim is credible on its face, even if it is later found that the person making the claim is not.
I’m a third-grade dyslexic retard dropout who loves, loves me some Flat-Earth Theory and Nazism. Allow me to stipulate that on a stack of sixty-three Bibles. Does that make you feel better? Genetic Fallacy hasn’t been seen in a few pages, I guess it was time to trot it out.
If you don’t like the fact that my initial skepticism seems, for the moment, to be joined by accretive information that is “not inconsistent” with it, then have the graciousness to move on and argue with one of the other (and so-far not-discussed) points I raise (such as Nifong’s moronic interpretation of the rape shield law), not on venting bitterness that you may have been overly credulous as to an allegation that was (for multiple discrete reasons) off-the-wall on its face.
God you really are stupid. amazing.
quote my post and still misread it? fuck. that’s amazing. I said absolutely nothing about your personal genetical make up. I’m sure your parents were/are lovely people, with an amazing list of positive qualities. You, however are an idiot of the first degree. And that’s what I am stating.
And, it still appears to have slipped by your brain that all the people arguing w/you are not arguing that your conclusion (that the accuser is not telling the truth) is false. here’s the tricky part, try to keep up:
we’re claiming that the fucking process you used to come to that conclusion is fatally flawed and should be discarded/
ever hear about the broken clock being correct twice a day? same thing.
your process is wrong.
I’m thinking someone doesn’t know what us dropouts mean by the “Genetic Fallacy.”
I disagree. #2 should never be used as a proxy for either of the others because it is driven almost entirely by a priori beliefs of the evaluator that have nothing to do with the actual evidence of the case.
There is no natural frequency of gang rape. As such, we have no idea what the probability of this phenomenon occurring is. We can make educated guesses about this probability by using Bayes’ Rule. Given a state of the world Y, we can attempt to calculate the probability of event X occurring. If you see a lot of people carrying unbrellas outside but for some reason you cannot observe the weather, you will probably conclude that it is raining. Conversely, if you see a young woman engaged in dangerous behavior, you can conclude that there is a high probability that something unpleasant will happen.
It is “rational” to update one’s prior beliefs about the state of the world as one observes events. Some people do, many others don’t. So when people “evaluate the likelihood” that some event happen, this evaluation is conditioned on their beliefs about the state of the world and about one’s awareness about the range of possible outcomes. In other words, this subjective calculation of probability is incredibly unreliable and ought never be used as a proxy for judgments that can be driven by evidence.
The thing to remember is, when there is no natural frequency of certain kinds of events, it is dubious at best to use a statistic to infer a probability. 1 out of 10 women may be raped in their lifetimes, but this does not mean that a random woman has a 1/10 probability of being raped.
oddly enough it appears that neither do you. You seem to be continuing under the delusion that because we attack your reasoning, we’re also attacking your conclusion.
so, while it appears that I was incorrect about what I thought you were claiming, your claim is still absolutely wrong.
Go figure.
Wonder what the odds are for that.
But my “conclusion” was not that “she’s lying.” I’ve still stopped short of saying that because I don’t know, for sure. (Which is, oddly, more conservative/open than the position now expressed by even some on here who (honest, put your hand on your heart and admit what you really thought when you first heard this story) were initially giving this story some to a good deal of plausibility).
My “conclusion” was that the off-kilter factors that would have to simultaneously come into play for her story to be true (statistically rare crime pattern, no DNA, past convictions of accuser) were, in combination, and for purposes of discussion in a forum in which we none of us have access to first hand or percipient evidence, and in which every opinion is in part a “guess,” and in which YMMV, were not to be excluded ab initio as factors that shape our metaphorical wagering as to whether this particular crime did in fact take place.
On this point, I “concluded” or posited that these factors had real-world-claim-assessment relevance (not that they determined falsity, and not that her claims were in fact false). You do, if I understand you, reject that 'conclusion, 'at least as to some of the factors on which I drew, and in doing so (if that is what you are doing), you suggested that the source of the conclusion (i.e., an impliedly uneducated or immature mind, to judge by your flings about my attainments) impeached it. So, I think, no delusion on my part in saying you fell prey (in that particular attack) to the Gen. Fallacy.
The accuser’s past convictions do not affect the likelihood that the crime took place. By suggesting that it does, you commit the very same fallacy you are accusing wring of commiting. And top of that idiocy, you still persist in thinking DOJ stats on race should be relevant in your a priori assumptions. After two statistically-inclined individuals (myself and Maeglin) have already pointed out why this is erroneous.
This would be funny, if…oh hell, it is funny. It’s 14 pages worth of funny.