All the FBI sex crime expert did was reference the ranges found from the major studies on the subject. He didn't single out a specific study to suit a specific agenda...he gave the range from all of the major studies. The extreme ends found through research are as low as 8% and as high as 45%. A wide range, to be sure, most likely based on varying methodologies if you read the studies. But again, he is simply establishing that research has repeatedly shown that rape accusations aren't always accurate due to many different factors. In rare cases, it's an outright malicious lie. In other cases, it's a mistaken memory due to any number of factors (such as alcohol impairment.) But study after study has shown that it does happen and that innocent people get accused and even convicted. He then proceeds to explain in great detail why he feels that Eric Frimpong is one of those people. Those of you who are upset are reading too much into the statistics and the reason they were mentioned. The exact percentage of false or unsubstantiated rape claims, whether it's 8% or 45%, doesn't specifically apply to Eric Frimpong. It simply introduces the fact that in study after study, it happens. And in this very specific case, FBI Special Agent Clemente feels that it has happened to Eric Frimpong. You can disagree with his detailed assertions, but to imply that he or BigSoccer advocate an agenda that "Women are sluts who lie about rape" is ignorant and absurd. People can have doubts about a specific rape investigation and conviction, yet not be anti-woman and pro-rape or whatever it is you think any questioning about a specific allegation is meant to secretly imply. People can find both rape and injustice abhorrent. And this story would no longer be newsworthy if so many people didn't have so many doubts about this specific case. I have no idea what the truth is, other than this: If Eric Frimpong is innocent, neither he nor the victim will have received justice by his imprisonment. And if he's guilty, those responsible for the investigation and prosecution of this crime did the victim no favors by creating such fertile soil for the seeds of doubt.
oh dear. Can you really be this naive? Why on earth is he even quoting propensity evidence from unrelated cases?
So how is the 'fact' that in some unknown proportion of unrelated cases, complainants lie or cannot substantiate their cases, relevant to the Frimpong case? Or is this simply another example of using propensity reasoning and rape mythology to advance a shonky argument? Can you really be suggesting the fact the some unrelated complainants have lied is relevant to the Frimpong case simply because they were also rape cases? Oh dear oh dear.
None of that is really relevant to whether the guy's affidavit is worth noting. Agree with him or not, it is central to ongoing case developments. He's a respected expert spearheading Frimpong's appeal, and his opinions and statements carry weight. Archer is doing an ongoing series on the Frimpong case. The idea that he should ignore this development because the affidavit includes assertions which offend some people's sensibilities is, frankly, absurd.
The idea that Archer should ignore some major defects in the 'experts' argumentation and post the thing lock stock and barrel makes Archer look a bit silly. Just in my highly valued opinion of course.
Um, isn't this the type of discussion that should be happening in the blog comments? Isn't that the whole #$#$@! point of having comments on a blog? Doesn't this discussion pretty much prove the point of having the article on BigSoccer in the first place? I don't really care about the debate one way or the other, I just think that this thread is horrible knee-jerk reaction without actually having read the blog and what it was posting, and these type of comments pretty much back that up.
Here? It's hard to keep up with what's reported in Britain, but I thought those kinds of stories were so circa 2003, and that BS started the blogs only a few years ago. Anyway, I don't remember reading anything on the topic. BS is following the case then? Could you point me to the judge's ruling posted here on BS? Nancy Grace is a legal expert too. I wouldn't trust her to tell me the day of the week, so there is something to be said for knowing who you're getting your expert opinions from. IMO. Anyway, I'm wondering if there's a different standard of behavior fort the blogs vs the forums....If a blog appears on the front page saying something like "Surveys show that between 8% and 45% of <pick your ethnicity, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation> do <something bad -- lie, cheat, steal, etc.>" can we have a debate about that too? And if something like that can be put on the front page, what does it say about the TOS?
Yes, here. Or more to the point, would that not be a story that someone should blog about, because you know, a rape happened. You could use the search function for "Frimpong". I doubt your time is any more valuable than mine. A legal commentator does not an expert make, regardless of what the TV tells you. An architecture critic/writer can opine until the cows come home about rooms, spaces, buildings and design. But they can't design a building anywhere in the US. What does it say about a person that's wants to curtail discussion with the TOS rather than engage the merits of the case and/or the evidence being presented?
I don't see how academic studies and statistical analysis are "rape mythology." And I think the study of unsubstantiated claims and the body of work that identifies common threads in those instances would certainly be relevant if a case fit many of those established patterns. It wouldn't be sufficient on its own, but it could be a meaningful piece of a much larger puzzle. Conversely, I assume you feel that police should not study profiles of rapists and use that established body of information when investigating and prosecuting rapes. After all, it's inconsequential "rape mythology", right?
If Nancy Grace deposed an affidavit that was being used as the central plank of an appeal, in relation to a case being discussed in detail on BigSoccer already, I'd certainly expect her views to come under discussion. This really is silly. If you disagree with the content of the affidavit, discuss it in the blog comments. That's what they're there for.
The blog does not say "surveys show" and end there. It presents an affidavit that says (I'll quote it for you enjoyment): I would like to know those sources, yet in the over all context, it says that there are questions about the reporting of rape, and that because of such questions "investigators are trained to look for" indicators to "determine the veracity of sex crimes allegations." I agree with Jitty, it is a wide range. But it is above 0%. If the number was only 8%, would you still be as up in arms?
oh my goodness. 1. Evidence of false reporting in other unrelated cases is not relevant to the the Frimpong complainant. Can you grasp this? 2. Conflating false reporting with unsubstantiated cases allows the 'expert' to vastly expand the range. wow - that was easy 3. He has not simply picked the main studies. He has deliberately included an outlier studiy to jack his figures up towards 50%. The generally accepted range is more like 2-8% If you did your research you would understand that this 'Expert' has cooked his figure and then used it in an extremely misleading manner when it clearly has no relevance to the Frimpong case. So again I am suspicious as to why this guy would be advancing rape mythology.
I would be happy if it was 8% - because that is the generally accepted high end. The low end is 2% - which is on par with false reporting generally. Its yet to be shown that rape is more likely to be false reported than any other crime. Which is precisely why people like Lynne get justifiably angry when they see that stuff.
I don't think anyone disputes Lynne's right to dispute the numbers that are proposed in the affidavit. People are just questioning where she gets off asking for the reporting of the affidavit to be censored altogether. Agree or disagree with the opinion reported, by any standard the affidavit is newsworthy and carries weight given its relationship to the ongoing case. In that context, it's been reprinted in the blog. This discussion really is quite ridiculous.
I'm having a hard time taking seriously an affidavit that has a range of 8% to 45%. It's just silly on its face.