<p>The difference between a typical rape case and many of the cases which are being discussed (Brown, U. of Michigan, to some extent UVa) is that not only is the accusation not substantiated by evidence, but that there is actual evidence to exonerate the accused that was completely ignored. For instance, in the U. of Michigan case discussed here, there was a roommate that was in the room the entire time, the couple was quite noisy during the act, and the roommate wrote a facebook message complaining about them at the time–apparently it sounded like a normal sexual encounter. In the Brown case, the couple was interrupted, witnesses (both her friends and his) saw the woman bound up a winding staircase after the act (invalidating the claim that she was incapacitated), and conversed with her right after they were interrupted and she acted like someone only slightly embarrassed to be “that girl” that hooks up with someone, not someone who had been through any sort of trauma. The UVa case has some more bizarre details. Yes, it’s believable that a rape victim might not remember exactly where they were after such a traumatic event (although they should acknowledge that before placing definite blame.) However, the story she told before the alleged incident happened, before her memory could have been affected by a rape, was bizarre and unsubstantiated. She told her friends the name of this guy before the incident, the name of a chemistry major at UVa, and that name didn’t match anyone at UVa. The picture that the alleged perpetrator apparently sent the victim’s friend was actually of a guy from high school that hadn’t been in Charlottesville for 6 years, and was going to college in other state, and barely knew Jackie. There’s a lot of shades of Lenay Kekule’ (fake ND girlfriend) here. The other stuff about the party itself that this occurred has been disputed, but as people said, it’s difficult to evaluate that if there was a party the week before or the week after. But pretty much every single detail Jackie provided has been disputed, and in many cases, was bizarre on its own. For these cases, it looks like the accused could actually be proven innocent, and that is why it is so scary that the cases were pursued anyway so vigorously. What happens when there is no witnesses to the sexual encounter?</p>
<p>So no, I don’t think if you disbelieve Jackie, you automatically disbelieve Pizzagirl or other people who have been through trauma but who don’t have substantiating evidence. (And yes, I find Pizzagirl’s story convincing and I am deeply sorry she had to go through that.)</p>
<p>However, there is a difference between innocent and ‘not guilty’ (even by the standard of preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a shadow of a doubt). Before you destroy someone’s life by expelling them or putting them in jail, you need some reasonable standard of evidence. If you are talking about getting someone fired, I think it would depend on whether that job itself would enable a perpetratror (e.g., Sunday school teacher makes it easier for an adult to interact with potential victims, so I would push them out of their position there.) Testimony from the alleged victim provides some evidence, and hopefully there aren’t giant holes in the story or contradictory testimony. Testimony from people that saw the alleged victim afterwards looking traumatized helps the alleged victim’s case, as does things like a rape kit in certain kinds of cases. In cases where consent was validated by alcohol, it would help if someone actually saw the person in the intoxicated state. Even with such evidence, the conclusion of whether it is convincing is scarily subjective. I watch those Dateline murder mystery shows all the time, and most of the time I disagree with the verdict (in both directions.)</p>