How often do rape cases hinge on he-said she-said testimony?

Infinitely more often than murder cases.

If it's still a relatively small percentage, though, then that's not a useful data point. Cases with he-said she-said testimony are the ones we read about in long pieces about college campuses that ikestoys used to spam us with, but I have no idea what percent of rape convictions those actually represent. Do you?

No, but also I think my point is misinterpreted (which is my fault, it is worded badly).

By he-said, she-said I didn't mean to imply that it is literally just the victim's word vs. the accused, what I mean to say is the following:

- In murder cases, the fact that a murder occurred is almost always undisputed. There is a dead body. The question is who did it.

- In rape cases, the fact that the two had sex is often undisputed. The question is whether it was consensual.

The second question is a much "softer" question than the first, and much more difficult to "prove" one way or the other. This makes it harder to convict and harder to unconvict (since at that point the burden of proof is shifted).

I have no idea of exact numbers but I have always been under the impression that the "attacked by masked man in alley" type of rapes are relatively rare and that most would fall into the category described here.

Again, what percent of rape convictions does this quote describe? Because there are also a lot of rapes where there is no question that it wasn't consensual, and those are probably more likely to lead to convictions (which is the important part, since we're discussing exonerations) than the cases you're describing.

I'm actually going to look for an answer to this question because I find it interesting but in the meantime:

It's not relevant. Do you think the below quote implies false murder convictions are 15x more likely than false sexual assault convictions?



Also, just as a disclaimer/reminder this conversation is completely about whether the article's evidence actually implies the conclusion and not whether the conclusion is correct. As I've already said I think the conclusion is likely correct.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/per...exual-violence

28% stranger
45% acquaintance
25% spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend (current or ex)
6% can't remember or multiple people
1% non-spouse relative

This is not exactly the question asked (I don't suspect that data is available) but it seems safe to assume that
45% acquaintance
25% bf/gf
are mostly going to be cases that revolve around the issue of consent rather than the question of "who did it?"

so I'm reasonable confident in saying the number at least approaches 50%.

Okay. So, say that half of rape convictions are the he-said she-said questions-of-consent variety and can never be exonerated. Half them are not.

Now say that there are twice as many rapes as murders in the US. Should we see a similar number of exonerations?

You might say that violent rapes are still not like murders and still shouldn't see as much exoneration, and maybe you're right, I don't really care - my point all along has been that it was lazy to have written off the rape exoneration number based on assuming that too many cases are he-said she-said.

I disagree. I think, regardless of exact details and statistics regarding these convictions, that it is extremely obvious that rape and murder cases are fundamentally different and as such the exoneration numbers are really bad evidence of the conclusion.

Just for starters, it is literally impossible to have a false murder allegation in the vain of the false rape allegations being discussed.

1) I think probably not, but I don't really know.

2) This is a bizarre reversal of the burden here. The person writing an article needs to show that it at least makes sense that "fewer exonerations implies fewer false convictions" if they want to make that claim, but they provide no evidence for it whatsoever. That you admit you have no idea whether I'm correct or not is basically admitting I am correct. Because my argument is not "fewer exonerations DOES NOT imply fewer false convictions" it is "these case types are fundamentally different so there's no way to know without providing some kind of evidence"

It's a super small piece of the article that's painting a larger picture. You have probably already spent more time focusing on that sentence than anyone else on the internet, and if you think every part of it needs to be accompanied by a logical proof based on first principles, I don't think internet articles are for you dude.

Huh? You made an argument on some flawed premises that I corrected for you. Again, since for some reason you deliberately omitted from your quote the most important part of that paragraph:

Only because you responded? And at worst I am tied with you in that honor.

I think logically dubious parts that purport to support a conclusion need to be backed up with something at least or they would be better not mentioned at all.

"...I don't really care - my point all along has been that it was lazy to have written off the rape exoneration number based on assuming that too many cases are he-said she-said."

1) I only omitted the bolded so not sure what you're talking about.
2) You're still wrong; my writing it off does not rely on "assuming that too many cases are he-said she-said" it relies on there being no basis for assuming the cases are similar enough to compare the numbers. This remains true, my speculation on reasons why they might not be comparable (and it's accuracy) notwithstanding.

Boyd Tinsely, come on down: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...uct/623004002/

I know Batali is old news, but that was a devastating piece they ran on 60 Minutes tonight. I think he will likely be behind bars before long. NYPD investigating.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b9836edf9790

Morgan Freeman, come on down.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/enter...ons/index.html

God ****ing damn it.

I've always liked Alan Arkin a lot. Good for him there.

Goodbye Sprite money in 3..2..1...

This Morgan Freeman thread is scandalous. Some Woody Allen stuff.

Freeman had a bad rep from back on The Electric Company.

400 million dollars!

What's wrong with woody allen

/Bret Stephens

Huh?

I have no idea if it's right, but in the quoted twitter thread it says Freeman was involved in the 5th largest divorce settlement ever at the time for $400M.

Damn it, Morgan.