CF, I worked with probabilities for a living. 
I am not looking for 100 percent. You don’t need 100 percent to convict a guy for murder.
CF, come on woman. You have been reading my posts for awhile.
Yeah! Lol!
Oh, sorry, dstark, I thought you were saying that two 50/50 cases would add up to certainty, and I couldn’t imagine how you would say such a thing. Now I understand your point: two independent 50/50 cases brings us to 75% probability.
CF, I don’t want to have to worry about you. There are enough posters I already worry about. LOL
This is not for you CF.
However, for those who aren’t sure…
I like this.
Actually the probabilistic analysis is a lot more complicated if you want to get it right. You have to look at the chance that any accused person would be unlucky enough to get not one, but two totally independent false accusations of sexual violence against him. And the chance of that has got to be miniscule.
So…if we have two independent 50/50 cases…we have 75 percent certainty…
If we had three independent 50/50 cases…we have 87.5 percent certainty…
If we had four independent 50/50 cases… We have 93.75 percent certainty…
It is not really fair in this Columbia case to use 4 independent cases. I like using 4 though because that gets us beyond reasonable doubt. 
75 percent is what called what legally? I forget. It is not preponderance of evidence. It is not reasonable doubt.
But 75 percent is good enough for civil court right.
Schools should have this in their rules.
If we know the percentage of cases are he said/she said…we can end these arguments mathematically
That is why I want to know.
Nate Silver got the presidential election outcome correct. The pundits got it wrong. The pundits didn’t use numbers.
So…what are the percentages of cases that are he/said she/said?
When FSU police are given 55 cases and they make arrests in 2 cases, how many are he/said she/said cases?
CF, your post #243 is true. We still should get of these guys.
This UCLA case is interesting. The plea bargain means UCLA doesn’t have to report sexual assaults in these cases now?
http://abc7.com/news/former-ucla-water-polo-player-reaches-plea-deal-in-rape-case/496161/
Mr. Fang (who is actually Dr. Fang and knows a whole lot about math) and I just had a long long discussion about the chance that two totally independent accusers would accuse the same guy of sexual assault, if their accusations taken independently would have a 50/50 chance of being true. If you run the math, which Dr. Fang did because he is even nerdier than I am, you discover the chance is very tiny. There was mention of Bayesian priors, and Poisson distributions, but the bottom line is that a guy has to be extremely unlucky to have two different women independently accuse him of sexual assault if he didn’t assault them.
If you see two different people totally independently and without knowledge of the other accusation say that a guy raped them, he did it. This does not apply to Nungesser, because the accusations are by no means independent. But if “Adam” accused Nungesser before he knew about Sulkowicz, then Nungesser did it.
Well that’s not the law and not close to it. Conviction isn’t based on probabilities or opinions, it is based on proving facts. It is not a 51% chance needed, but a more probable than not. Flip all the coins you want, that isn’t how law works.
I like that, CF.
Your son or husband is very helpful.
But actually does it have to work that way in the campus setting? Evidentiary standards for admissibility in criminal court are very strict. If someone is on trial for rape, the prosecutor can’t introduce evidence of sexual assaults against other victims for the purpose of showing the defendant’s character. That evidence can be introduced for another purpose such as intent or lack of mistake. The evidentiary standards and standard of proof are stringent because the defendant’s freedom is at stake. I would think that a private college could avail itself of different standards when making a determination of whether a student should remain on campus or be suspended or expelled. If I were a university, I would definitely want the adjudicators to know of other similar complaints when making that decision. For that reason, the probability exercise should result in Nungesser getting the boot.
“Totally plausible that Sulkowicz is a bunny boiler and opportunist…Also plausible that Nungesser is a creep who messed with the wrong girl”
These aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact, they go together. Troubled people gravitate toward abusers and vice versa.
“75 percent is what called what legally? I forget. It is not preponderance of evidence. It is not reasonable doubt.”
Clear and convincing evidence? I don’t know whether jurisdictions assign a probability value to it, but that’s the intermediate standard.
“But 75 percent is good enough for civil court right.”
51% is generally good enough for civil cases, so 75% should be an easy win.
“I would think that a private college could avail itself of different standards when making a determination of whether a student should remain on campus or be suspended or expelled.”
Private universities can go pretty far down the road of doing whatever they want, so long as they aren’t mistreating anyone on the basis of sex/race/etc. Religious schools have even more leeway.
“[Nungesser] often forcefully pinned her arms back against the mattress during sex; [Accuser #2] would cry during and after they slept together. Not until months after their break up did [Accuser #2] recognize this as non-consensual intercourse.”
“You may say she consented, but that’s not her story. She says the sex was non-consensual. Non-consensual sex is rape.”
Fang – This is not rape. This “non-consensual sex” occurred time after time after time during the course of a several months long relationship. There’s no suggestion that Nungesser obtained this sex by using a weapon or blackmail or by drugging the woman. The woman was a college freshman, so presumably was not financially dependent on Nungesser and did not share a residence with him.
So while the girl may wished her boyfriend did not treat her this way, I don’t see how this is non-consensual. If he was “raping” her repeatedly, I think she was “consenting” to that treatment. And there’s no such thing in the law as consensual rape unless it is statutory.
The guy may be an abusive jerk and the girl, by her own admission, had issues. But no rape here.
He may not even be abusive,I don’t know I’ve never slept with him, he may just be someone who likes different things than these women. But agree northwesty we cannot legislate how people negotiate their bedroom habits. If the women didn’t like it then why hook-up more than once - find another guy. That’s life along the path to finding someone with whom you are compatible in an era where women can make a decision whether or not to sleep with someone. I find it rather disturbing that we are still dissecting this guys sex life. If we put every guy that grabs your hands so you can’t touch them at the moment in jail or dives in for a kiss we’d probably lose a huge percentage of our male population to prisons which is ridiculous beyond belief. Let it go.
deleted
Let me step back here, and try to understand what you are saying, @momofthreeboys and @northwesty.
The accuser is saying that repeatedly during her relationship with Nungesser, he would force her to have sex that she didn’t want and didn’t consent to. Are you saying that EVEN IF she is telling the truth, EVEN IF he forced her to have sex that she didn’t want and didn’t consent to, NEVERTHELESS that would not be rape?
Correct, she consented…repeatedly…despite apparently not enjoying it. She’s a silly girl and should have found a new hook-up, she was free to stop having sex with him after the first time she didn’t enjoy it. College is perhaps the one environment where there is an abundance of men and women of approximately the same age to form relationships with - it will never be as easy as in college. She dropped her allegations of emotional abuse anyway so there’s nothing to discuss. There is no grand jury in the country that would have indited him for any of the allegations these women made.
Your logic proves too much. You are saying that going back to her boyfriend means she cannot have been assaulted. But we know that’s not true, because we know that women go back to boyfriends who beat them.
If a woman comes to the police and complains of domestic assault, the prosecutor is not going to say that we should ignore the fourteen visits to the emergency room, the five broken bones, the four lost teeth and the eleven calls to 911 from the neighbors because the woman went back to her attacker many times. We don’t say she consented to being beaten up, because we know she didn’t. We may think it’s mysterious that a woman would put up with that, but we know that women do, for whatever reason, stay with men who harm them. When they’ve come to the realization that they need to get away, we rejoice and we help them; we don’t say we can’t prosecute their attackers because the women allowed the attacks many times.
So, if we don’t say she consented to being beaten up just because she went back to the guy who sent her to the emergency room fourteen times, how on earth can we say that she consented to sex that she says she didn’t consent to, just because she went back? That’s just ignoring facts and reality-- the fact and the reality that women stay with men who abuse them, sometimes men who abuse them in horrible ways.
For the purposes of this discussion, we are not examining whether a grand jury would indict him. That is irrelevant. We are examining whether the allegations she made could possibly be true. Yes, clearly, they could possibly be true: she might have returned to her rapist. Women sometimes return to their attackers. You don’t know whether her allegations are true, but they are possible.
Maybe that is a problem with affirmative consent, because if you can look back on a 6 month relationship and pick out a few nights where you were raped no-one is going to take the very serious crime of felony rape seriously. This is really getting ridiculous.
This interpretation is not correct and is not true to the events.
This position requires rewriting history and defies any critical distinction of what was actually done and when it was done.
What the accuser described was actually this:
Seeing something as non-consenual “months after” is not even remotely the same as being seen as “non-consenual” months before. There is no logic connecting the two positions, only a change in one’s interpretation of events.
To be non-consenual during the act, the accused must have been told or must have been given some indication that the accuser was doing something against her will. There is nothing to indicate that the accused was doing anything that the accuser did not go along with at the time. Sounds more like she participated just fine, and even went back for more.
More importantly, the accuser cannot participate in something willingly on multiple occasions, never tell the accused that she objected to it in any way, and then decide “months later” that what he was doing something against her will. That is rewriting history and is really makes no sense since the accused had no clue at the time.
Frankly, it is bizarre to think that such conflating of past and present is even logical in terms of how people can relate to each other. In any human-to-human scenario, people relate and react to what they are told or shown at the time, not what someone decides to interpret “months later.”
Overall, there is nothing, which indicates that at any time did the accuser say to the accused when they were having sex that she did not consent to it or did she complain in any way to the accused. And logically that is the only thing the accused has to go on, as he cannot jump in a time machine and learn in advance that the accuser would change her mind “months later” and so he must stop now, even though she is participating.
Life and decision-taking do not work in the way you put forth re Accuser #2. We deal with information that is in front of us and what is known to us, not what people do and decide in the future, which, by definition, is unknown to both parties. We can only be held accountable for what is known at the time.
That he had to hold her down during the act, and that she was crying, wouldn’t possibly be just a little hint? Come on.