You must have been atypical then. My high school had no more than 500 students, I knew maybe 15 of them well, and maybe 50 of them by name. The same was true for basically everyone else I knew.
And this is somehow a defense? Jocks and sports stars have a better chance of getting away with crimes because they are popular? You don't see anything wrong with that?
My point was that without the political machinations of that one attorney, the Duke case would not have reached the point and become the mess it did. Whereas the cases I am talking about have an entire system of people behaving in a controversial manner.
"Jason" was the name of the owner of the blog she posted the comment on. The blog entry the comment was originally posted on had Jason, the blog owner, complaining about certain people saying false rape accusations were more common than they are. In other words, he already agreed with her before she posted that, so there was no reason for her to make up a story to try to prove any kind of point to him.
Then they should have said so, instead of just denying her access to one.
Not if they are framed in a way to do nothing but cast doubt on the testimony of the subject, rather than gathering information about the crime.
They forced her through an "intense physical exam" before allowing her a counselor.
The hospital wouldn't provide it.
She said it was "very flimsy" and mostly their "instinct." Unless you believe she is lying about several major points rather than just leaving detail out, I somehow doubt it. Besides, it was also mentioned that there was much physical evidence on her body supporting the case of sexual assault. So unless she was lying about that too...
She was the victim, the original post was an anonymous post by the victim.
So you don't accept the official statistics, imply the amount of false accusations must be higher, and accuse anyone of claiming they are lower based on any kind of testimony as lying. I think we're done here.
"You must have been atypical then."
Possibly. I considered my experience normal because so many seemed to share it. You had the same fifty students in every class? Or you just never learned the names/faces of the other students?
"And this is somehow a defense?"
As the witty gentleman from the other side of the pond pointed out, no it's not a defense, it's an explanation. I feel safe in saying people are generally inclined to believe the innocence of friends/loved ones/and those they like.
"Whereas the cases I am talking about have an entire system of people behaving in a controversial manner."
I don't see any controversy in the Stuebenville case. In the anonymous case, I've only heard one side of the story...and two detectives doesn't equal "an entire system."
""Jason" was the name of the owner of the blog..."
I misread the bit about Jason. Perhaps they're on friendly terms and she lied to bolster his point. It's anonymous, so it doesn't carry any weight or consequences of a lie told in real life. Not that hard to do...or imagine someone doing.
"Then they should have said so, instead of just denying her access to one."
How do you know they didn't? She never says either way.
"Not if they are framed in a way to do nothing but cast doubt on the testimony of the subject, rather than gathering information about the crime."
How do you know how they were framed? She didn't actually quote any questions asked of her.
"They forced her through an "intense physical exam" before allowing her a counselor."
Which she doesn't explain at all...neither the physical exam nor what was so intense about it.
"The hospital wouldn't provide it."
Did she ask? I honestly can't remember if she mentions that...does she have insurance? If nothing else, there last few points should demonstrated how much information is missing from the story and why another perspective would be useful. You're assuming a lot that was left unexplained by the storyteller.
"She said it was "very flimsy" and mostly their "instinct."
Is she a detective now? That statement is nothing but her opinion...we don't know if it's "flimsy" evidence or "instinct" (which isn't evidence at all) because she never mentions what the evidence IS!!! If it's so weak as she claims...why leave it out? Wouldn't including it only make her case stronger? I'm inclined to believe she left it out because it doesn't.
"She was the victim, the original post was an anonymous post by the victim."
Can you link the original? I couldn't find it.
"So you don't accept the official statistics, imply the amount of false accusations must be higher, and accuse anyone of claiming they are lower based on any kind of testimony as lying. "
No. I don't accept the official statistics. I'm not implying they are higher...I'm saying they.are. I'm absolutely certain that those statistics don't account for all the men falsely convicted and all the men who knew they were innocent, yet plead guilty to get a lighter sentence. Are you saying no such cases exist?
And I'm not even claiming your anonymous woman is lying...though saying that five times doesn't seem to get through to you. I'm saying I wouldn't believe her anonymous story based solely on her anonymous story....you shouldn't either.