It is an open forum for all discussions...thus referred to as 'The Sandbox'.
Great Info From BTrade!!!
As we've heard, there is reason to suspect that Google conducts information searches in favor of its political bias. Unfortunately, this needs to be kept in mind whenever trying to gather accurate information. The need to double check different sources has never been more critical.
For instance if you Google-search information on False Rape Accusations you’ll most commonly see a reported percentage rate of 2 – 8% - which is comfortingly low, and would give Christine Blasey Ford the added credence of being in the majority of truthful claims.
However, if you look for the authority on those estimates through Google, good luck. It turns out that Google either can’t or won’t get into validated numbers. Through another search engine I found different facts. Information is most authentic if confirmed by a direct source once you know who the sources are – something Google won’t necessarily help you with.
The two percent figure is generally used without citation despite that it is fairly ubiquitous and has gone unchallenged by organizations such as the Violence Against Women Act. However, in 2004, Villanova University Law School reported that “no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the two percent false rape complaint thesis.” IOW, the two percent figure has no basis in research or fact.
Below is a link to a list published by the Department of Justice in 1996. It is the result of a study which documented false rape accusations resulting in guilty verdicts and prison time averaging
seven years prior to exoneration by DNA testing. “ Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect. These percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and the National Institute of Justice's informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate."
If these results are correctly extrapolated, the rate of false reports is between 20 and 40% depending on whether DNA excludes an accused person or if inconclusive DNA is added. It should also be noted that false claims of rape as high as 45-50% have been asserted in other studies (Kanin, 1987 Purdue University).
Given these facts, what does the total lack of evidence or witness corroboration add to the chances that Blasey Ford is either lying or delusional? Adding the enormous money, power and political gain going into her projection as a victim - how does the ratio of likely dishonest to likely innocent tip?
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt
