Why would a rape victim go to the media first and not the police?

[regexcellent]

Surely not because filing a false police report is a crime, and the cops will instantly see through your cock and bull story.

Turns out the rape allegations at UVA which have been filling the newspapers are completely fabricated.

Not only are none of the details verifiable, but they're almost all trivially falsifiable. No member of the fraternity accused matches the description given of one of the alleged perpetrators. Supposedly he works as a lifeguard at the campus gym; no employees of the campus gym are in the frat. The frat did not hold any events on the date of the incident. Also, despite rushes being involved in the story, the frat only rushes in the spring.

Besides which, the story itself is ludicrous by itself. She claimed to have been pushed so hard onto a glass table so hard it shattered and then raped atop the shards. She'd have been unrecognizably mauled and presumably hospitalized. The police would be onto that like hungry bloodhounds on a red steak.

The cherry on top is that Jackie, the "victim," asked Rolling Stone not to publish the article, but they did anyway because the story was "too important." Presumably she did so because it is fake. It's good for her that she did that, because that's a solid libel defense if she gets sued by the frat.

[Lorizael]

I don't know any of the details of this case, and I don't particularly care about them. That said, a rape victim's recollections not aligning with reality does not mean rape did not occur. Confabulation is real and very common, especially during emotionally-charged experiences. (That doesn't mean a rape did necessarily occur, either. The point is, apparently faulty memory is indicative of a human being involved, not of a lie being told.)

[My Wife Hates CIV]

on advise from a bad lawyer. just because you pay him a $1000... does not mean you'll see even 10 buck back.

[regexcellent]

I don't know any of the details of this case, and I don't particularly care about them.)

You should care about them.

Read my post again. The details are included. They're all provably wrong. We shouldn't believe this particular case because it's full of ****ing holes.

This is not a case of poor recollection. It's a case of there is no way anything described could have ever possibly happened.

[Lorizael]

The details being "provably wrong" doesn't in any sense rule out memory errors. Again, I don't particularly care about this case. It's quite possible no rape occurred. I'm simply making a general statement about the idea that incongruous accounts rule out the event.

Some interesting studies have shown that people's memories of the details of 9/11--like where they were when it happened, for example--are astonishingly inaccurate. Nevertheless, 9/11 still happened.

[regexcellent]

Yes, they do rule out memory errors. Unless the memory in error was having been raped in the first place. Read the OP.

No aspect of the story could possibly be true, down to where it happened, when it happened, who did it, and what injuries the woman sustained.

You are going ridiculously far to pretend that it's possible that this wasn't an outright fabrication.

[Hauldren Collider]

Lori you're being silly. If memory errors are as significant as you suggest (downright alzheimers-level), then she has absolutely no credibility as a witness whatsoever regardless, whether or not it happened.

Occam's razor indicates extremely strongly towards the whole thing being a lie.

[MRT144]

Because the police might debase the accusation or not pursue investigation because the proscutability of the crime is unlikely. I mean, that's a reason and as the New Orleans PD shows, police don't really know how to do rape cases (and that's as generous as I'll be) effectively or efficiently.

Who knows in this case. I think Rolling Stone probably was a little too eager for this.

[Hauldren Collider]

If this really happened prosecution would be a ****ing slam dunk. Gang rapes are really easy to win, since there's always one participant who is willing to rat out his buddies in return for reduced sentence.

[regexcellent]

Also, if she really was sliding around on a bunch of shards of broken glass there'd be a treasure trove of physical evidence. Not to mention, you know, the perpetrators would actually exist and there would have actually been a party that night.

The problem with rape cases which are, for lack of a better term, more mundane than this, is that it often comes down to he said she said, where both he and she were drunk. The university isn't going to be any better at handling that than the police.

[MRT144]

If this really happened prosecution would be a ****ing slam dunk. Gang rapes are really easy to win, since there's always one participant who is willing to rat out his buddies in return for reduced sentence.

You should tour college campuses with pamphlets. You're thinking like a 3rd party.

[MRT144]

But I agree, its dubious

[MRT144]

I guess the point I'll eventually arrive at in this conversation is "do you believe most rape accusations are false, and if so why is that more likely than rape?"

[KrazyHorse]

Because the police might debase the accusation or not pursue investigation because the proscutability of the crime is unlikely. I mean, that's a reason and as the New Orleans PD shows, police don't really know how to do rape cases (and that's as generous as I'll be) effectively or efficiently.

Who knows in this case. I think Rolling Stone probably was a little too eager for this.

rolling stone generally relies on lurid storytelling that fails to meet normal journalistic standards for things like verifiability. It's why nobody in their right mind takes them seriously.

[KrazyHorse]

I guess the point I'll eventually arrive at in this conversation is "do you believe most rape accusations are false, and if so why is that more likely than rape?"

It wouldn't surprise me if the numbers of false and true accusations were similar.