Lloyd Irvin's students accused of brutal rape (Part 2)

[100%Jiu-Jitsu]

Originally Posted by dirtypablo

To the spasms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002457/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14...in-the-vagina/

It can be caused by rape, but can also be caused by any type of traumatic sexual experience. It can also be caused by other physical things like a uti. Since the girl says she was raped, even if she wasnt, I think we can agree that experience was probably negative and traumatic. So, Im getting rid of your 80%.

Now the men who plead guilty to rape-The man who plead guilty wasnt the first one tried. He plead guilty AFTER two other men had been sentenced to ten years. In fact, he was arrested when he showed up to testify to the innocence of those defendants. So its not like he showed up at the police station and said I did it. So, if you were in that situation (Oh I know none of you would be) but if you were and didnt do it and the other guys had already been convicted, dont you think you might just plead guilty to get off? Whats the probability that an innocent man would say he did something to avoid going to jail for 10 years? I would say pretty high. So get rid of your 75.

The bruise on the lip- Yes violence is more likely to cause it than standard consensual intercourse. But again, if you look at the possibility that it was a consensual gang bang, then that probability is going to be different. How many women who like to be gang banged like it gentle?

You don't seem to understand how conditional probability works.

The entire point is that, even when no one piece of evidence is a smoking gun, the chances of a person being innocent can be very low because of the COMBINATION of evidence. You can rationally be very confident that someone is guilty, even while accepting that each individual piece of evidence could be explained by some other scenario.

Nothing you've said would cause me to actually change my already generously low probability estimates about the chances of consensual sex causing the woman's physical symptoms or the chances of an innocent man pleading guilty to rape. But just to illustrate how powerful this method of reasoning is, I'm going to lower my estimates to silly levels because they STILL will establish that a rape is by far the most likely scenario.

Let's say that we credit your arguments so much that we assume there is a FORTY-PERCENT CHANCE each piece of evidence could exist if the sex was consensual:

We start out with our 55% baseline probability.

Given the 40/60 chance of the spasms being caused by consensual sex, their presence increases the likelihood of rape to 64%.

Given the 40/60 chance that the bruise was caused by consensual sex, its presence increases the likelihood of rape to 72%.

Given the 40/60 chance that the man who confessed to rape was actually innocent, the chances of a rape occurring are still almost EIGHTY PERCENT!

I think these probabilities are comically low, but hopefully it will show you how even a person who thinks each piece of evidence is mediocre when viewed individually can be persuaded by the totality of its persuasive power.

(FYI for people familiar with Bayes' theorem: I've been trying to make things simple for F12 by implicitly having the chances of a true positive and a false positive always add up to 100%. Don't hate me.)

[Balto]

Originally Posted by Makhno

So now that everyone is done arguing with dirty pablo (I hope), Vitamin C had a very good suggestion that someone make a website with an open letter to LI asking him to address the 1990 case. Is there anyone here able/willing to do this? I don't even know where to begin, but I'm willing to help in whatever way I can.

Also, anybody know the status of LI's facebook page? I was able to see it, just not post before, but now fb just redirects me to my news feed.

It is strange that he refuses to even acknowledge it.

He may be scared of potential civil liability resulting from the current incident. One way of looking at it is that a successful corporation just had two of its employees rape a client. I know that would scare any company I ever worked for.

Perhaps he is afraid that if he discusses his past rape charge, his statements could be used against him in a civil case -- something like he encouraged this kind of culture due to his past history, etc. I have no idea if any of that would pan out, but neither does Lloyd probably so he might have decided to just completely ignore it for the time being.

[anaconda]

Originally Posted by snoop dogg

he completely deleted it. also he deleted the Team lloyd irvin USA page and his personal page..
its all gone

I don't think he deleted it, just deactivated it.

[madgrappler]

Originally Posted by 100%Jiu-Jitsu

(FYI for people familiar with Bayes' theorem: I've been trying to make things simple for F12 by implicitly having the chances of a true positive and a false positive always add up to 100%. Don't hate me.)

And a good job, too, IMHO.

[BeRGLeZ]

Originally Posted by 100%Jiu-Jitsu

You don't seem to understand how conditional probability works.

The entire point is that, even when no one piece of evidence is a smoking gun, the chances of a person being innocent can be very low because of the COMBINATION of evidence. You can rationally be very confident that someone is guilty, even while accepting that each individual piece of evidence could be explained by some other scenario.

Nothing you've said would cause me to actually change my already generously low probability estimates about the chances of consensual sex causing the woman's physical symptoms or the chances of an innocent man pleading guilty to rape. But just to illustrate how powerful this method of reasoning is, I'm going to lower my estimates to silly levels because they STILL will establish that a rape is by far the most likely scenario.

Let's say that we credit your arguments so much that we assume there is a FORTY-PERCENT CHANCE each piece of evidence could exist if the sex was consensual:

We start out with our 55% baseline probability.

Given the 40/60 chance of the spasms being caused by consensual sex, their presence increases the likelihood of rape to 64%.

Given the 40/60 chance that the bruise was caused by consensual sex, its presence increases the likelihood of rape to 72%.

Given the 40/60 chance that the man who confessed to rape was actually innocent, the chances of a rape occurring are still almost EIGHTY PERCENT!

I think these probabilities are comically low, but hopefully it will show you how even a person who thinks each piece of evidence is mediocre when viewed individually can be persuaded by the totality of its persuasive power.

(FYI for people familiar with Bayes' theorem: I've been trying to make things simple for F12 by implicitly having the chances of a true positive and a false positive always add up to 100%. Don't hate me.)

Good posts.

^This & others; the greater accumulation of these 'variables' and emerging details, the more likely the situation arrives to a devastating conclusion.
We acknowledge the absence of critical evidence immediately available to us on this forum, however in aligning to the purpose of a message board (forum), the discussion here is completely warranted....

Truly shocking.

[Breadcutter]

Weird, he activated his Lloyd Irvin Jr. page this afternoon and it was all positive, regular jits stuff. Keenan going to Brazil, blah blah. Like 30 replies and no mention of the case or anything. Guess he figured out that you can keep people from posting using certain settings. Now it's back down. Just deactivated.

[jclaudevandamme]

I am not following all the threads. These statistic replies made me confused.

Was she really raped? I mean, did the video footage from the parking lot or the medical personal proved the rape?

[Jagcorps_esq]

Originally Posted by dirtypablo

Again, WITH NO OTHER INFO, if all you have heard is-a woman claims she was raped by 5 guys, the 5 guys say it was consentual. Who do you believe?

This is a bullshit, straw man argument. The reason is that you've created this fantasy that can never be realized.

I'm been on the prosecution teams for many rapes and I can tell you that I've believe many of them and I've also disbelieved many of them.

You've give no facts that help actually make a determination here. You're acting like math (5 against 1) is a no brainer decision. That's stupid and fits pretty well with your overall level of posting. In almost EVERY gang rape situation, the accused act as witnesses and therefore, the witnessed claiming that they are innocent outnumber the witness (usually) saying that it was rape.

Thankfully, law doesn't work as moronically as you've outlined here. Bias is taken into consideration by a jury when listening to testimony. Corroborating evidence for each story is looked at. The comportment of the victim and accused is considered.

So, your simple question isn't simple. It's the product of a simple mind that doesn't know the first thing about the complexity of a pre-trial investigation and how many people have to be convinced before we'll even prosecute...much less win.

All that said, addressing your lame scenario....knowing nothing more, I'm going with the girl. Here's why. Alleging rape is a very difficult thing to do. This is why I feel that rape is usually worse than murder, because the victim continues to suffer.

There is a great deal of stress imposed on someone alleging rape. You have rape kits (a complete invasion of their body) and repeated questioning to the point of exhaustion.

Now, are there times people falsely allege rape? Absolutely, but it less common that truthful accounts because it is so hard.

On the other side, people that are being convicted of rape stating that they didn't do it or that it was consensual is almost 100%. RARELY do you have someone admit to it. So that fact that 5 whole guys (read with bitter sarcastic tone) managed to pluck up the courage to say "I didn't do it.....she wanted it man."

Yeah, that's not super compelling to me. Certainly, there are times when their comments make sense and hers don't. You don't hear about those, because we don't prosecute them.

[dirtypablo]

Originally Posted by Jagcorps_esq

This is a bullshit, straw man argument. The reason is that you've created this fantasy that can never be realized.

I'm been on the prosecution teams for many rapes and I can tell you that I've believe many of them and I've also disbelieved many of them.

You've give no facts that help actually make a determination here. You're acting like math (5 against 1) is a no brainer decision. That's stupid and fits pretty well with your overall level of posting. In almost EVERY gang rape situation, the accused act as witnesses and therefore, the witnessed claiming that they are innocent outnumber the witness (usually) saying that it was rape.

Thankfully, law doesn't work as moronically as you've outlined here. Bias is taken into consideration by a jury when listening to testimony. Corroborating evidence for each story is looked at. The comportment of the victim and accused is considered.

So, your simple question isn't simple. It's the product of a simple mind that doesn't know the first thing about the complexity of a pre-trial investigation and how many people have to be convinced before we'll even prosecute...much less win.

All that said, addressing your lame scenario....knowing nothing more, I'm going with the girl. Here's why. Alleging rape is a very difficult thing to do. This is why I feel that rape is usually worse than murder, because the victim continues to suffer.

There is a great deal of stress imposed on someone alleging rape. You have rape kits (a complete invasion of their body) and repeated questioning to the point of exhaustion.

Now, are there times people falsely allege rape? Absolutely, but it less common that truthful accounts because it is so hard.

On the other side, people that are being convicted of rape stating that they didn't do it or that it was consensual is almost 100%. RARELY do you have someone admit to it. So that fact that 5 whole guys (read with bitter sarcastic tone) managed to pluck up the courage to say "I didn't do it.....she wanted it man."

Yeah, that's not super compelling to me. Certainly, there are times when their comments make sense and hers don't. You don't hear about those, because we don't prosecute them.

You actually supported my point. It was that given 5 guys saying it was consensual, and the girl saying it was rape, most would believe its rape because most dont want to believe there are girls out there that want to bang a bunch of dudes right after another.

[Jagcorps_esq]

Originally Posted by envee

not trying to troll or anything but how can you rape somebody over and over again repeatedly like schultz is alleged to have done? i mean after one ejaculates one usually does not feel like having sex to the point of ejaculating again.

You are an embarrassingly bad troll or a complete moron. I'm not sure which.

Typically, in a rape situation (particularly if the person is drunk), they don't actually ejaculate at all or will only do so after a long time.

Sometimes, it's the alcohol or fear, and sometimes it's that little shred of a soul they have left making them feel guilty.