More photo ID stuff. Apparently, the complainant failed to pick Evans (the third defendant) out of a photo lineup two weeks before she picked him out “with 90% certainty,” from a second array, (if he had a mustache, which he did not, and is against team rules.)
Not by me. As the other poster noted, I long ago said, you know, if this shit drives you off the cliff, ignore it – and I’ve posted dozen of other posts on other topics (Nifong and his unprofessionalism, mainly) since. Of course, because I am Hitler Incarnate, all that goes by the boards, despite my having walked away from the government figures dozens or hundreds of posts ago.
Now: I have looked carefully at what zagloba and others have posted. I still am not sure what their contention/position is, exactly, but if the situation is that the DoJ stats were based on a (relatively) tiny overall sample of households and very few of those contained blacks who complained of any sexual assault by perpetrators of any race – then this would be (as someone has suggested) quirky methodology and would lessen for me the suggestive or predictive value of the (if true, heavily extrapolated) DoJ “nationwide” figures. If this kind of mega-extrapolation was taking place – and I still don’t know, as the notes to the tables are less than utterly lucid – then so be it. I’ve seen no other statistics showing massively higher white-on-black sex offense rates, but if someone has them . . . .
Huerta it’s really simple. Do you still believe these stats have any or should have any baring on this case?
Cause it seems to me you’re still defending their use.
Yes or no, would be fine; but I don’t want to stiffle you.
OK, let me try once again to explain why this isn’t correct. But first, let me say that I don’t think ANYONE in this thread is trying to defend the woman making the rape allegations. She is not a credible vicitm, and attempts to explain why the statistcs* don’t matter are NOT attempts to portray her in a positive light.
Even if we ignore all the other information we have about the case, we really don’t know anything about the number of falsely reported Black on White rapes. We don’t have any information telling us it’s higher or lower than rape in general, so why is this charge less likely to be true than any other charge of rape that we read about in the newspaper? It’s a fallacy to say that: X is rare, therefore reports of X are likely to be untrue, because we know nothing about the rareness of “reports of X”. I’ve seen numbers for false rape reports thrown around here that vary from 8% to 50%, but none of them speaks to the race of the people involved. If you want to talk about the likelihood of any given White/Black encounter to result in rape, we can us the stats to say that it is quite rare (as is all rape, btw). But once a rape has been reported, we’re in an entirely new situation, because we’re no longer in a random White/Black encounter.
Once we throw in the fact that the accuser and the accused knew and encountered each other on the night in question, that throws all those questions about statistics out the window-- especially when we consider the circumstances under with the encounter took place. Now, it may be that strippers are quick to cry rape or maybe they rarely do so, but we don’t know either way. As we learn more and more about this case, the woman in question looks less and less credible, but not because she is Black and the guys are white. She would look equally as noncredible if she were White.
*From the little data we have, it does appear that White on Black rape is a relatively rare form or rape (as is Black on White rape, btw). We only have national statisitics to got by, though, and from the few sources we’ve found it looks like Black on White rape represents something like 5-8% of all rapes (in the nation). And, btw, we probably should adjust that number up for a state like North Carolina which has roughly twice the percentage of Blacks as the national average. Let’s say closer to 10% for North Carolina. So, it’s rare, but still happens in 1 out of 10 cases in North Carolina (in as much as we can teast that number out of the poor statistics that we do have).
You don’t understand, man. I don’t care about this particular case, in fact it couldn’t interest me less. I am just lurking around this thread and posting to defend Freedom against Hitlerite Tyranny.
Is the response I’ve seen from a disproportionate number of posters who adamantly deny having any interest in the facts of this case, who decry it as uninteresting and unimportant, who issue threats to leave, yet keep lurking around.
I wondered whether this was because they had backed the wrong horse. I challenged them to explain, in all honesty (there was my mistake) whether they had initially believed the stripper, and whether that had colored their views.
One person, I think, took me up on that challenge (although changing the hypothetical to say something to the effect of “I considered it plausible that drunk fratboys would grope a stripper,” which is not what is alleged here). The rest ignored it. Yelling “Hitler” in a crowded theatre is much more fun and easy.
Now, if called on it, they will say: “Well, of course this stripper may not have much credibility, but then one in four college women are raped, and rape is a serious problem, and the long legacy of Antebellum blah blah blah, and Huerta loves Hitler, and besides, let’s not rush to judgment, let’s just take a neutral stance by indicting these three guys on flimsy evidence – then if they get acquitted, no harm, no foul!” But I suspect this is very much a fallback position – why else would they have come to the thread, other than having or seeking an opinion on the credibilty of the charges?
Please don’t “stiffle” me, that sounds painful.
The usefulness of the DoJ stats, or any others, in this case, has been trumped by other accretive evidence.
If the stats were comprehensive and authoritative, then I would not rule out looking to them in making tentative projections when other evidence was lacking or ambiguous. I’ve expressed my willingness to consider that these stats, if I read the asterisks and tables the way zagloba does, may be of limited utility even for this limited purpose. So instead of having five data points, say, I can go on four.
Which is what I said lo these many threads ago when I said, you know what, if these stats so inflame you, look to my other points.
No one did.
That’s not my fault.
Since I’m clearly not making any of those statements, care to address the post I made immediately before yours? It was probably close to being a simulpost, so I doubt you saw it beforehand.
I think that is true now. I do not in my heart of hearts believe that was true when all the posters came to this thread. I think many believed her, or wanted to believe her, or were inclined to believe her, and saw political value in having it be true, because it confirmed certain assumptions and grievances they had. I’ve challenged them on this, but don’t eagerly await any truthful response as to whether they believed or afforded plausibility to the charges (remember, ywtf claimed many pages into the DoJ sidetrack that she hadn’t even looked at the stats, which was either bizarre for someone who claims to be arguing about them or, much more likely, a pretty simplistic baldfaced lie).
BTW, I could be wrong, but I suspect you jumbled “black-on-white” and “white-on-black” in the remainder of your post, if I’m reading it right.
It’s only as painful as you make it, relax and you won’t feel a thing.
Yes, but only in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, which should’ve read:
*
…we really don’t know anything about the number of falsely reported White on Black rapes.*
So, can you comment on that part of my post-- the part dealing with the statistics?
I just went back and re-read many of the posts from the first few pages, and I think that is a gross exageration of what people were saying “when all the posters came into this thread”. There was some considerable confusion about the facts of the case, and a lot of maneuvering to get everyone on the same page wrt those facts. Just trace the discussion about the DNA evidence, and you can see how it took a few pages to get that story right.
Also, FWIW, I suspect in the second line of the last paragraph of that post.
I think I’ve addressed the statistics angle. If they aren’t reliable or well-sourced stats, then they have less or no value. If they are, then they might (until a critical mass of other evidence comes in) be part of (I am tired of saying this, but only “part of”) what influences my viewpoints or assessments of plausibility. I’ve never said (pace the strawman) that it was the only, or even predominant, factor that might make me lean one way or the other in my gut reaction.
The odd thing to me is that people are acting like this is such a bizarre notion – a fact I tend to attribute to moral narcissism though I’d welcome other thoughts. For those living in the real world and not in love with proving how morally superior they are, admitting that past patterns influence our present perception is a commonplace. If I tell you I was brutally beaten by female Finnish gangsters in the Cleveland subway, and at the very same instant a story comes over the AP wires that an African immigrant was brutally beaten up by skinheads in Moscow you (not you, JM specifically, but “one”) cannot (can they?) seriously claim that if a gun were put to your head you would afford those two stories equal prima facie plausibility. If asked to stake your house on either proposition, would you toss a coin? Would one nobly ‘abstain from judgment’ in faux neutrality (when doing so meant prosecutors were going to go on a witch hunt against the female Finnish population of Cleveland)? Or would you draw on the real-world experience that tells you that, while anything is possible and Finnish women do commit some/lots of crimes, you’ve not come across many Finnish-on-Huerta assaults but have heard lots and lots of stories of Russian skinheads abusing Africans?
Yes, it’s an exaggerated hypothetical, but my point is – we all throw the dice and bet the odds, every day, in our personal and political and public policy decisions, based on past patterns (including, sometimes, demographic patterns). Anyone (of whatever race) who tells me that they don’t is not being truthful, or is a hopeless innocent.
I’ve read your post, and I don’t think we are making the same assumptions.
Assume it’s 0%. (Also assume you meant white-on-black rapes. If you didn’t, I really don’t understand you.)
But assume that every single instance of a black woman reporting a rape by a white guy or guys is truthful. The number of white-on-black rapes is still rare.
Or would it make a difference if I assume the percent of false reports of white-on-black rape is the same as false reports of any intra-racial rape? Same result - white-on-black rape is rare - rarer, at least, than intra-racial rape.
Or perhaps I need to ask for a justification for the assumption that the rate of false reports of intra-racial rape is different from inter-racial rape.
Again, I don’t follow you. According to the crime victim survey above, reports of inter-racial rape are so rare as to be part of the statistical noise. Yes?
Right, and therefore it seems a safe bet to assume that the number of false rape reports is the same regardless of race. If it is more likely, then the stripper is even less likely to be telling the truth. If it is less, the absolute percentages are still awfully small.
I don’t see this. How does our prediction before the fact (“it is unlikely that a given white/black encounter will end up in rape”) become invalid when it becomes “it is unlikely that this given white/black encounter ended up in rape”.
It makes no sense. Drag in an example from earlier in the thread - being hit by a meteorite. This is unlikely, therefore someone who points to the hood of their car and claims the hole is from a meteorite is probably mistaken or lying.
To put it another way, to say that it is unlikely that anyone got hit by a meteorite is the same thing as saying that most or all previous reports of being hit by a meteorite turned out to be something else.
*But nobody in this thread - not me, and certainly not Huerta88 - has ever suggested that we should rely on statistics if evidence pertaining to the case is available. * This has been stated and restated - and restated.
In other words, our preliminary assessment, made before an examination of the evidence, is tending to bear out. We expected, based on the statistical rarity of the circumstances of the alleged assault, that it was unlikely. And the evidence reinforces that notion, and tends to establish that it is a valid supposition.
The notion that white-on-black rape is relatively rare is exactly what I have been arguing all along. Maybe we have reached common ground.
But I have also made a deliberate attempt to avoid the topic of black-on-white rape. If anything is guaranteed to send the Usual Suspects into even greater a frenzy of hysteria, it would be that topic. So I am afraid I am not going near that part. Sorry.
Regards,
Shodan
Contra, if you don’t think people saying that I want to be slavemaster-style raped or constantly attributing “disappointment” to me because the stats “do not conform to my worldview” particularly nasty, then I’m wondering what would count, in your eyes. Scan some of these pages and then tell me what you think.
Some evidence is always available, if you consider basic facts as evidence. If we know that the accuser is a stripper and that the accused hired her at a party, that right there is sufficient evidence to make your stats totally irrelevant.
Yes, See my correction above.
But if every instance in which a rape is reported is true, and we know in this instance that a rape was reported, then your statistics would say this woman is telling the truth. How could it not. Who cares how many rapes there are if everytime one is reported (pre your assumption here), it turns out to be true?
That would tell you that this rape is no more or less likely to have happened than any other rape, and the race of the people involved is irrelavent.
Well, right now we don’t know anything at all about the rate of falsly reported inter-racial dates, so we have no reason to assume it is different than rape in general. That’s the whole point. That is the key statistic we need, and we don’t have it.
No. Those statistics aren’t obtained by looking at the actual rape cases, they’re obtained by calling random people and asking if they’ve been raped. And if you look at multiple years, you see the number jumps around quite a bit, but it isn’t zero.
Because in one case you are sampling everyone in the population, but in the second case you’re sampling only women who have reported a rape. Those are two different populations and you can’t apply statistics from one population to another population. This was not an “encounter” (ie, any random encounter), it was “an encounter in which the woman reported a rape”.
Bad analogy, since the person would have to have the metorite in hand to be comparable to a claim of rape (anaolgous to the nurse’s report that a rape did happen). Besides, would you look at the race of the person making the claim about the meteorite to determine whether or not it was more or less likely to have happened?
Not true. Huerta claimed that we, as posters on this MB, should take the statistical data into account along with the other information.
That’s nuts. Are you seriously going to claim that your prelimary assessment was based solely on the race of the accuser and accused? If so, can you quote the post where you stated that? If not, you just contradicted your previous statement (about not using the statistical data once other evidence came to light).
The fundamental problem with your reasoning, Huerta, the thing that sticks out as being the most egregiously…how should I tactfully say this…ignorant, is that every allegation to an extent is unique. You could latch onto any number of characteristics and claim that something is rare and therefore (according to you) unlikely.
What are the odds that a rash of sniper attacks in Montgomery County, MD would be masterminded by the same man also involved in a shooting in Montgomery, AL, all within the same month period? How common is that? Not very! So it sounds fishy on its face, yup it does.
What’s the probability that a man by the name of Harvey Lee would shoot a man name John Fitzgerald? In Texas? And in broad daylight? The odds that all four of those variables would come together like that is so coincidental. Throw in the probability that all four of things would come together plus the infintessimal probability of John also being president of the US, and its every hard for me to believe that such a thing could happen.
Oh yeah, let me tell you, I just saw a lady arrested for shoplifting and guess what? You won’t believe this, but she was wearing a pair of jordache jeans. What’s the odds of that happening? I won’t blame you if you find my story unbelieveable, cause it does sound implausible and all.
John seems to think you are smart enough to know that you are wrong on this, that you’re only holding out due to stubborness. I suspect he might be changing his mind soon.
Yeah, got that one wrong, too. Sorry for the confusion.
Having looked over them again, what is your assessment of them now? And, what do you think given the multi-year analysis that someone did in an earlier post?
Well, if I also read that some Finnish gangsters were known to be visiting Cleveland, and that they had been spotted on the subway, I’d say: Hmm, maybe!
You still haven’t addressed the issue that “X is rare” does not imply that “reports of X are likely to be untrue” unless we know something about the likelihood of false reports of X. Your reasoning, btw, is the same reasoning that Creationists use to refute evolution: What are the odds? Very low, therefore it didn’t happen!
And Shodan wanted to put forth this proposition:
Let B = Black woman reports rape by White man
Let T = True; and F = false; and R = Rare event happens
B -> T and B -> R
B, therefore F; simply because B -> R, even thought we know (ie, assumed per his hypthetical) that B -> T.
Not every rape, just the white-on-black ones.
No, because white-on-black rape is still much less common.
Well, this comes dangerously close to saying that we have no idea of how many rapes are committed, by who, or anything else. So the whole purpose of collecting crime statistics is completely foiled, since they cannot be relied upon. So the entire field of statistics is completely invalid, and has no predictive power.
I can’t buy that. I think, however, that this is the whole point. We have no reason to believe that false reports of intra-racial rape are any more - or less - common than inter-racial ones. So assume it’s the same. Of any group of women reporting a rape, the ones claiming the unlikely ones are the ones who are less credible. All other things being equal.
Well, in neither case have we established that the unlikely event has really occurred. That is what we are disagreeing about - I think.
No, I would look at the likelihood of the event. Being hit by a meteorite is unlikely. A black woman being raped by a white guy is also, although much less, unlikely. But both are unlikely, and those who report such events have a strong prima facie case to overcome.
No, actually he said “until other, more dispositive facts become available”. Let’s not wind up like the more dishonest folks also posting to this thread.
Oh, and on preview -
Correct except for the last phrase. No one is concluding anything.
Regards,
Shodan
I suppose technically **Shodan **was proposing:
B -> T and B -> R
B, therefore T + F (true or false).
I mean, come on! If we assume that B -> T. How can you come to any conlcuions other than “T” once “B” has occured?