The Absence of Witnesses Isn't Evidence of Non-Crime

In response to my column of yesterday, Lucinda Marshall of the Feminist Peace Network echoes a good point I've been hearing:

[U]nder normal circumstances, rape is a very underreported crime for many reasons and in this case, who were they going to report it to? There was virtually no security presence in the Superdome and clearly the first priority was things like lack of sanitation, water, etc.

Hard to report rapes and other crimes to MIA cops; hard to interview witnesses when they're thousands of miles away. Rumors are infinitely easier to check up on in well-observed locations like the Astrodome (where, according the Houston Chronicle, there have been "2 reports of sexual assaults; one proven to be false and one still under investigation").

Comments

[joe]

That stands to reason.

[Horst Graben]

I agree 100%. The same must then also apply to WMD's and Saddam/bin Laden connections. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... they teach this in elementary science. Another rule of thumb is believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.

If the local, state and federal response to Katrina was 1/2 as bad as the lies and rumors spread by all of you whining mainstream journalists (with editors and checks and balances doncha know), the death toll in NOLA would be 100,000 instead of the rumored, reported and not verified 10,000.

How many "Caseys" have been murdered by Jordanian freedom fighters egged on by the sensationalized Abu Grab stories.

Would you fly on an airline with the same accuracy standards as mainstream media??

Get out the mirror Matt.

[Portlander]

Joe, I think we've located one of those "swift boat" guys you were talking about in another thread.

Reason is mainstream media? Since when? If so, I'm gonna hafta cancel my subscription!

[JMoore]

Erm, it's probably pointless this late, but the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

"Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence" is what one should state.