Ted Rath allegations

[LesBaker]

Hi, a woman here, and I've been a victim of sexual assault myself and I will say that no we shouldn't just "believe all women" Women lie too, women can be vindictive and manipulative, despite my experience I still trust men a hell of a lot more than I trust other women. I want justice for real victims of course but I think innocent until prove guilty still needs to be the status quo

I don't think anyone disagrees with innocent until proven guilty.

I feel that the default shouldn't be "she's probably lying" when we know that almost always the woman is not lying, and that's from many, many studies.

I'm assume that something happened because of that ratio of truth to lie means that the likelihood that something happened is very high.Now that said sometimes things don't pass the eyeball test. For instance the Duke lacrosse team scandal. That was suspicious from the outset. And there have been other times I've had questions about a claim.

It's weird to me..........if a woman claims to have been robbed or had her purse snatched nobody doubts her but if she claims to have been raped or assaulted or groped there is a cloud of suspicion.

Jussie Smollett was mentioned in this thread and I had questions about that because it seemed premeditated. I mean who walks around late at night with a noose and paint or whatever it was they threw on him. I think he should serve a small sentence, and pay a hefty fine that can be used to cover the cost of the investigation and issue a public apology directly to the men and women of the Chicago Police. When I say directly he should go to that precinct and ask for their forgiveness face to face.

 

[RamInferno]

Here ya go:

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...i57j69i61j0.4293j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I think a major issue here is that once a claim is published, it is then quoted and repeated over and over regardless of the validity of the claim. Taking your Google search result and looking at the first article, it claims only 2%-10% of rape allegations are false according to the authors of a 2010 study. OK, let's look at that study. How do they even define a false allegation? They define that an allegation can only be determined as false if there was a thorough investigation and there must be eveidence that an assault did not happen.

So, if there was no investigation, it cannot be defined as a false allegation, even if the woman recants her story or admits she was lying. If there is an investigation, if it doesn't turn up positive evidence that an assault didn't occur, then it cannot be classiffied as a false allegation, even if it is a false allegation. Always fun proving a negative, as we all know. Guilty until proven innocent. Welcome to the gulag, comrade.

I think we can see simply from these definitions, that even if false allegations were in the neighborhood of 90%, this study would still be able to claim somewhere in the 2%-10% range that it does.

Women have many many reasons for making false allegations. Got caught cheating? RAPE! Got caught by dad with a boy? RAPE! Kind of feel gross about it the next day? RAPE! Unfortunately, these are very common and it's very easy to find news stories were women ultimately admitted to making up the charges for reasons such as these (try Google, maybe you've heard if it). But these won't show up in the statistics because a woman admitting she lied doesn't qualify as a false accusation under the definitions used by the studies whose stats keep getting bandied about.

 

[Ewe83]

Well being robbed is usually pretty easily proven, so never really any reason to question it, but if you want to to take somebody down, destroy their life, you go the sexual route, even if it's proven to be false later that person usually still carries that stigma with them for the rest of their life. Because it's so damaging is why I think we shouldn't just take one person's word for it

 

[LesBaker]

How do they even define a false allegation? They define that an allegation can only be determined as false if there was a thorough investigation and there must be eveidence that an assault did not happen.

I would think another way would be a woman breaking down during the whole process and admitting it. We've seen that happen. There probably isn't always an investigation.

In that case it's a false accusation.

So, if there was no investigation, it cannot be defined as a false allegation, even if the woman recants her story or admits she was lying.

Why do you say that? If a woman recants it's certainly then categorized as false wouldn't you agree? What else could it be categorized as?

 

[Ken]

I would think another way would be a woman breaking down during the whole process and admitting it. We've seen that happen. There probably isn't always an investigation.

In that case it's a false accusation.



Why do you say that? If a woman recants it's certainly then categorized as false wouldn't you agree? What else could it be categorized as?

I didn't read what you linked, but RamInferno apparently did and is stating what he found as the source for determining what a false allegation was in their stats. That is smart. In this day and age, unfortunately, you can't trust many 'stats', quoted or published, without considering the source. Everything is so political. There is so much BS masquerading as truth. I believe the %s quoted are probably close to accurate, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

The strangest thing about what's been reported is the 7 months between when this allegedly happened and Rath's arrest. What is with that? So did she report this to police on June 16th, and the police were so busy they couldn't get around to it for 7 months? That cast some doubt on the whole thing. Unless there were others that saw this inappropriate touching, there is no case. I thought you needed evidence for conviction. She may be telling the truth but knows there's no chance of conviction, and decided to proceed anyway because she's pissed off at him. This story just seems 'off' to me.

 

[rdlkgliders]

I have never met Ted Rath therefore I have know idea whether he is capable of any sexual misconduct or not. If I had met Ted Rath I most likely still would not know. I do not know the person accusing him either so I have know idea what her motivation to lie may or may not be.

I believe there are more cases of sexual misconduct than there are cases of false claims of sexual misconduct.

I believe that I will let this play out in the legal system where it most certainly seems headed and keep my fingers crossed in hopes that the truth comes out.

 

[coconut]

She may be telling the truth but knows there's no chance of conviction, and decided to proceed anyway because she's ticked off at him. This story just seems 'off' to me.

Perhaps over the 7 months some sort of arrangement or agreement between the parties was unable to happen?

 

[nighttrain]

The strangest thing about what's been reported is the 7 months between when this allegedly happened and Rath's arrest. What is with that? So did she report this to police on June 16th, and the police were so busy they couldn't get around to it for 7 months? That cast some doubt on the whole thing. Unless there were others that saw this inappropriate touching, there is no case. I thought you needed evidence for conviction. She may be telling the truth but knows there's no chance of conviction, and decided to proceed anyway because she's ticked off at him. This story just seems 'off' to me.

this ^ is peculiar and really makes me wonder, strange set of circumstances for sure

train

 

[LesBaker]

I didn't read what you linked, but RamInferno apparently did and is stating what he found as the source for determining what a false allegation was in their stats.

Click the link and you will see shitloads of articles and studies, it isn't just one. And they all fall in the range I mentioned.

The strangest thing about what's been reported is the 7 months between when this allegedly happened and Rath's arrest.

this ^ is peculiar and really makes me wonder, strange set of circumstances for sure

This is unusual but not unheard of. For all we know they did an investigation. For all we know she didn't come forward right away. Sometimes it takes friends putting pressure on the victim to step forward.

Look at the Weinstien (however it's spelled) debacle. And others where women kept their mouth shut out of shame or embarrassment for many months or years. I listened to the audiotape that one woman got with Weinstien and it was horrific how he badgered and threatened her, had it been your sister you would want to rip his balls off and shove them up his ass.

Unless there were others that saw this inappropriate touching, there is no case. I thought you needed evidence for conviction. She may be telling the truth but knows there's no chance of conviction, and decided to proceed anyway because she's ticked off at him.

This is the big problem with this type of case in a large number of them. A guy isn't going to grab a woman's ass or boobs in front of people because it's a big no-no. So often there are no witnesses and you are right there is no way to win, and that's the way it should be, unless the guy cops to doing it of course. This is what will likely lead to no conviction and charges dismissed.

The best you can hope for is someone saw it, or the woman mentioned it to someone right after, or there are serious inconsistencies in the guys story.

Same with rape without DNA evidence.

It becomes a hesaidshesaid and you cannot correctly or properly convict on words alone.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Look at the Weinstien (however it's spelled) debacle. And others where women kept their mouth shut out of shame or embarrassment for many months or years

c'mon man, they're actors. they made business decisions. they could sleep with the guy and get the part or they could make a complaint about him and not get the part. they chose to get the part. it's was an awful position they found themselves in but they chose their career over justice.

even at one of the pre award ceremonies an actor congratulated an actress for being nominated for an award and said she can stop faking she's in love with weinstein now. everyone started laughing, like it was an inside joke.

who knows how many actresses/actors have willingly slept with producers and directors to get a part. just part of the process. it's not right but it happens.

.

 

[LesBaker]

c'mon man, they're actors. they made business decisions. they could sleep with the guy and get the part or they could make a complaint about him and not get the part. they chose to get the part. it's was an awful position they found themselves in but they chose their career over justice.

even at one of the pre award ceremonies an actor congratulated an actress for being nominated for an award and said she can stop faking she's in love with weinstein now. everyone started laughing, like it was an inside joke.

who knows how many actresses/actors have willingly slept with producers and directors to get a part. just part of the process. it's not right but it happens.

.

Not every one slept with him, a lot of women didn't and are working in Hollywood..........and his signature move was to walk out of the hotel room bathroom he kept as an "office" naked or in a robe beating his meat like it owed him money.

Sleazy as hell.

Who thinks that's closing the deal when they are a slob like him LOL.

 

[Mike]

In Ca. Misdemeanor sexual battery is touching through the clothing of a sexual body part for the purpose of sexual gratification without restraining the victim

 

[1maGoh]

c'mon man, they're actors. they made business decisions. they could sleep with the guy and get the part or they could make a complaint about him and not get the part. they chose to get the part. it's was an awful position they found themselves in but they chose their career over justice.

even at one of the pre award ceremonies an actor congratulated an actress for being nominated for an award and said she can stop faking she's in love with weinstein now. everyone started laughing, like it was an inside joke.

who knows how many actresses/actors have willingly slept with producers and directors to get a part. just part of the process. it's not right but it happens.

.

That's called a "quid pro quo" type of sexual harassment or assault and (at least in the military) it's illegal. The person can always choose not to, but having sex with someone shouldn't be the determining factor in who gets a job, a promotion, a bonus, or the good assignment. It's wrong and I'm 99% sure it's illegal too. You can't hurt, hinder, or limit someone's career because they won't sexually gratify you. Sex acts are just as irrelevant to getting or maintaining a job as race, religion, gender, orientation, or (possibly) disability status (some disabilities will prevent people from doing some jobs, but not all) (also, all the other things that are irrelevant; I know I'm forgetting some).

They choose their career over justice, because careers are how people eat, sleep under a roof, and get around. Justice doesn't put food on the table and it doesn't save you from creditors. Disgusting, amoral jackwads shouldn't be allowed to hold those things over somebody's head in order to get some.

 

[Mojo Ram]

It's weird to me..........if a woman claims to have been robbed or had her purse snatched nobody doubts her but if she claims to have been raped or assaulted or groped there is a cloud of suspicion.

Because sexual harassment, or false accusation of sexual harassment is about power.

 

[snackdaddy]

Hell hath no fury. Which is why using the good hand of solitaire to ease your burden is the prudent decision.

 

[dieterbrock]

Hell hath no fury. Which is why using the good hand of solitaire to ease your burden is the prudent decision.

“I’ll drink to that”