{"id":204,"date":"2015-06-28T19:04:01","date_gmt":"2015-06-28T23:04:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/?p=204"},"modified":"2015-06-28T22:50:04","modified_gmt":"2015-06-29T02:50:04","slug":"what-do-we-know-about-false-rape-allegations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/2015\/06\/28\/what-do-we-know-about-false-rape-allegations\/","title":{"rendered":"What do we know about false rape allegations?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Recently<sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-1' id='fnref-204-1' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>1<\/a><\/sup> <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.simplejustice.us\/\" target=\"_blank\">Scott Greenfield over at Simple Justice<\/a> sent me a tweet asking my thoughts on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vox.com\/2015\/6\/1\/8687479\/lie-rape-statistics\" target=\"_blank\">Dara Lind&#8217;s article on false rape allegations<\/a>. \u00a0After taking a quick read through, <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ScottGreenfield\/status\/605755267825868800\" target=\"_blank\">I was fairly dismissive of it<\/a>. \u00a0Much to her credit, upon seeing the twitter exchange between myself and Scott, Dara immediately corrected the error in her piece. \u00a0She also made herself available for any questions I had while writing this post, so you will see some her responses included where appropriate<sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-2' id='fnref-204-2' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>2<\/a><\/sup>. \u00a0While I disagree with some of the conclusions she came to in her article, I was really impressed with the way she conducted herself and she has certainly earned my respect.<\/p>\n<p>So what is the main conclusion I disagree with?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>For one thing, research has finally nailed down a consistent range for how many reports of rape are false: somewhere between 2 and 8 percent, which is a lot narrower than the 1.5 percent to 90 percent range of the past.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>My first problem with this is that there aren&#8217;t any US studies that I am aware of that actually use the 2-8% range. \u00a0The only place I&#8217;ve seen that range used is in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ndaa.org\/pdf\/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">The Voice article<\/a> which, as I&#8217;ve previously discussed, isn&#8217;t exactly peer-reviewed research. \u00a0Even Lisak, who is a listed author of The Voice article says the range is wider at 2-10%. I asked Lind about this and here is her response:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Q2: In the article you state &#8220;For one thing, research has finally nailed down a consistent range for how many reports of rape are false: somewhere between 2 and 8 percent&#8221; and have a section heading of &#8220;A growing consensus: between 2 and 8 percent of allegations.&#8221; In your research did you find other authors coming up with that range besides Lonsway herself or when referencing the 2009 The Voice article?<\/p>\n<p><em>A:\u00a0To answer questions 2 and<\/em> 5<sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-3' id='fnref-204-3' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>3<\/a><\/sup>:<em> I almost certainly relied too much on Lonsway, between the interview I conducted with her and her response to Lisak<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I also asked about how heavily she weighed the relative importance of the various studies she researched:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Q4: When arriving at your conclusions, how heavily did you weigh recency and location (or perhaps the better way to phrase &#8211; how much credence did you give to studies done outside the US or more than 20 years ago)?<\/p>\n<p><em>A:To answer question 4: Strong bias for recency, little if any bias for US-based (I was working off Rumney, after all) but some. I did try to make the paucity of recent US-based studies clear in the article.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here is another area where I disagree with her &#8211; I don&#8217;t see why there would be some sort of universal rate of false reporting worldwide, so the international studies aren&#8217;t particularly meaningful to me <sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-4' id='fnref-204-4' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>4<\/a><\/sup> . \u00a0Once you strip out the international studies and the studies over 30 years old, all we are really left with is the MAD study and the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.icdv.idaho.gov\/conference\/handouts\/False-Allegations.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Lisak study<\/a>. \u00a0In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/2015\/01\/25\/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-1\/\">previous<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/2015\/01\/27\/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-2\/\">posts<\/a> I&#8217;ve detailed many of the problems with the MAD study, but here are some of the highlights:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Study was conducted by End Violence Against Women International, an organization that can hardly claim to be unbiased in regard to the prevalence of false rape reports<\/li>\n<li>Prior to the study Joanne Archambault, the executive director of End Violence Against Women International, expressed her opinion that the real rate of false reporting was 4% <sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-5' id='fnref-204-5' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>5<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<li>The communities\u00a0studied were not a random sample, but rather had to apply for the study and were then chosen by a selection committee<\/li>\n<li>Despite the data collection period being from 2005-2006, the study results have yet to be published in any peer-reviewed journal <sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-6' id='fnref-204-6' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>6<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Reports could only be classified as false after a &#8220;thorough, evidence-based investigation.<em>&#8221; \u00a0<\/em>However, such an investigation isn&#8217;t really possible if you follow EVAW International&#8217;s training materials which discourage asking too many questions for fear of receiving inconsistent responses <sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-7' id='fnref-204-7' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>7<\/a><\/sup> and suggested stopping the investigation if things seemed off\u00a0<sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-8' id='fnref-204-8' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>8<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>What about the Lisak study? \u00a0Lind correctly describes it as &#8220;inescapably narrow,&#8221; though in my mind that isn&#8217;t the only problem with it. One of Lisak&#8217;s primary complaints about the <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/FalseRapeAllegations\" target=\"_blank\">Kanin study<\/a> was that it &#8220;violates a cardinal rule of\u00a0science, a rule designed to\u00a0ensure that observations are\u00a0not simply the reflection of the\u00a0bias of the observer.&#8221; \u00a0With that in mind, let&#8217;s take a look at the team of researchers Lisak selected to help him categorize reports\u00a0(emphasis mine):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>Lori Gardinier, MSW, PhD, is the program director for the Human Services Major at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts where she is also the <strong>founder of the Campus Center on Violence Against Women<\/strong>. She holds a master\u2019s degree in social work from Boston University and a PhD from Northeastern University. She has practiced in the area of antipoverty\/ social justice work in community-based settings and as a counselor in organizations addressing intimate partner violence. Her most recent publication examines the Paid Family Leave Campaign in Massachusetts as a social movement.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Sarah C. Nicksa, MA, is a PhD candidate in the sociology program at Northeastern University. Her dissertation, entitled \u201cBystander Reactions to Witnessing Sexual Assault: The Impact of Gender, Community, and Social Learning,\u201d will be completed in spring 2011. She regularly teaches \u201cViolence in the Family\u201d and is a <strong>medical advocate at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Ashley M. Cote is a graduate of Northeastern University\u2019s College of Criminal Justice, where she focused on juvenile justice, security, and criminology. At Northeastern University, she was a <strong>member of the Campus Center on Violence Against Women<\/strong>, studied the effects of parental attachment on youth violence, and was elected a gubernatorial advisor for the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee under the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. She is currently employed at the Massachusetts General Hospital\u2019s police, security, and outside services department and plans to earn a master\u2019s in social work and urban leadership<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Essentially a team of victim advocates, who are trained in the mantra of &#8220;Always Believe,&#8221; sorted reports into the categories they felt were appropriate. \u00a0If Lisak was trying to ensure that his observations were not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer, I think he could have done a better job. \u00a0For the sake of argument though, let&#8217;s say that none of the above concerns had an impact on the studies. \u00a0Even if that were case, I would still disagree with the conclusion that the range of false reporting is between 2-8%. \u00a0The real problem is what question these studies are actually answering. \u00a0\u00a0Here are just a few\u00a0examples of what people <em>think<\/em> these studies say<sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-204-9' id='fnref-204-9' onclick='return fdfootnote_show(204)'>9<\/a><\/sup>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>RE: RollingStone&#8217;s statement on UVA story. Best research shows 2-10% rape allegations false that means 90-98% real<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Instead of saying 2-8% of rape reports are false to weigh in on the issue, why not say at least 92-98% are true??<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>She says &#8220;a fair #&#8221; of women lie about rape. No. B\/w 2-8% of rape reports turn out to be false. Meaning out of 100 women, 92-98 are truthful<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>People think the question these studies answer is\u00a0&#8220;What percentage of rape reports are false?&#8221; \u00a0In reality, the question\u00a0they are really answering is &#8220;What percentage of rape reports can we classify as false with a high degree of certainty?&#8221; \u00a0As a result, these studies don&#8217;t give us binary outcomes. \u00a0This isn&#8217;t necessarily a result of flawed design studies either. \u00a0Statistics isn&#8217;t a magical art form capable of diving absolute truth from thin air. When it comes to sexual assault, unless you physically were able to witness what happened, it can be very difficult to classify a report as either true or false. \u00a0In the later section of\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/2015\/01\/27\/how-to-lie-and-mislead-with-rape-statistics-part-2\/\">this post<\/a> I detailed how the data in the MAD study classifies 7.1% as false, but depending on which assumptions you use it could also classify only 1.2% &#8211; 7.8% as &#8220;true.&#8221; \u00a0This means that in the vast majority of cases, we don&#8217;t really have a way of determining if they are true or false.<\/p>\n<p>Let&#8217;s take a look at the outcomes of the Lisak study next. \u00a0First up, we have &#8220;False Reports&#8221; at 5.9%:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>Applying IACP guidelines, a case was classified as a false report if there\u00a0was evidence that a thorough investigation was pursued and that the investigation\u00a0had yielded evidence that the reported sexual assault had in fact not occurred.\u00a0A thorough investigation would involve, potentially, multiple interviews of the\u00a0alleged perpetrator, the victim, and other witnesses, and where applicable, the collection\u00a0of other forensic evidence (e.g., medical records, security camera records).\u00a0For example, if key elements of a victim\u2019s account of an assault were internally\u00a0inconsistent and directly contradicted by multiple witnesses and if the victim then\u00a0altered those key elements of his or her account, investigators might conclude that\u00a0the report was false. That conclusion would have been based not on a single interview,\u00a0or on intuitions about the credibility of the victim, but on a \u201cpreponderance\u201d\u00a0of evidence gathered over the course of a thorough investigation<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>That makes for a pretty high bar to clear. \u00a0In how many reports does it seem likely you would be able to show 1) key elements of a victim&#8217;s account of an assault were internally inconsistent 2) those elements were directly contradicted by multiple witnesses, and 3) the victim then altered those key elements of his or her account? \u00a0At this point I&#8217;ll refer you back to the tweets I listed above. \u00a0It is one thing to have a personal policy of assuming a report is true unless there is conclusive proof to the contrary, but these individuals are trying to claim that all of the below categories\u00a0<em>must<\/em> be true.<\/p>\n<p>Next up is &#8220;Case did not proceed&#8221; which was the most used classification at 44.9%:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>This classification was applied if the report of a sexual assault\u00a0did not result in a referral for prosecution or disciplinary action because of insufficient\u00a0evidence or because the victim withdrew from the process or was unable\u00a0to identify the perpetrator or because the victim mislabeled the incident (e.g.,\u00a0gave a truthful account of the incident, but the incident did not meet the legal\u00a0elements of the crime of sexual assault).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In other words, the most frequent classification in the study is unable to be slotted into the true\/false binary.<\/p>\n<p>Next is &#8220;Insufficient information to assign a category&#8221; at 13.9%:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>This classification was applied if a\u00a0report lacked basic information (e.g., neither the victim nor the perpetrator was\u00a0identified, and there was insufficient information to assign a category).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here is a fun math trick. \u00a0If you would like the headline number of your study to be smaller, be sure to fluff your denominator with cases that lack enough basic information to properly categorize.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, we have &#8220;Case proceeded&#8221; at 35.3%:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>This classification was applied if, after an investigation, the report\u00a0resulted in a referral for prosecution or disciplinary action or some other administrative\u00a0action by the university (e.g., the victim elected not to pursue university\u00a0sanctions, but the alleged perpetrator was barred from a particular building).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It may be tempting to view this category as &#8220;true,&#8221; but compare these criteria to the extremely strict definition of a false report. \u00a0Let&#8217;s flip the scenario here. \u00a0If instead of a team of victim advocates, the researchers consisted of defense attorneys or due process advocates and applied a similarly strict set of criteria to the &#8220;case proceeded&#8221; bucket, I&#8217;d have to imagine the &#8220;true report&#8221;\u00a0category would be quite small as well. \u00a0If someone did such a study and used it to claim that 90%+ of rape reports were false, it would be regarded\u00a0as hogwash &#8211; and rightly so.<\/p>\n<p>Lind&#8217;s point of view was that &#8220;research has finally nailed down a consistent range for how many reports of rape are false&#8221; and &#8220;The question is whether this research is going to get acknowledged, or if false accusations are going to continue to be treated as an unknowable X-factor in rape cases.&#8221; \u00a0I would argue that the real question is, if the only research we have isn&#8217;t able to classify the majority of cases as either true or false, how can we possibly claim to know the actual frequency of either?<\/p>\n<p>The issue of the 2-8% range was the area I primarily disagreed with, but there were two other things I wanted to touch on quickly.<\/p>\n<p>First, in her article Lind discusses what the research shows about why people file false reports. \u00a0My issue here is that once again we have to be careful about what we think we know vs what the research is actually able to tell us. \u00a0Since we are only able to examine the motivations for false reporting on cases we can determine to be false, instead of answering &#8220;Why do people file false rape reports?&#8221; they may\u00a0only be answering &#8220;Why do the reports we are able to classify as false get filed?&#8221; Lind claims that &#8220;Revenge wasn&#8217;t a very common motivation. And regret or guilt \u2014 the motivation the &#8220;gray rape&#8221; narrative implies is most common \u2014 wasn&#8217;t much of a factor at all.&#8221; \u00a0This may well turn out to be the case, however we have to consider the possibility that reports filed because of revenge or guilt may just be harder to classify as false, and thus the available research might not be capturing them.<\/p>\n<p>Second, in my tweets to Scott, I questioned whether or not Lind had read the relevant underlying studies. \u00a0In my email to her I explained my rationale for that. \u00a0Here are the relevant portions of my email and her response:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>1 &#8211; Basis for my tweets<\/p>\n<p>The first thing that made me think you hadn&#8217;t fully read the source material was obviously the mixing up of the MAD study with the Lisak study.\u00a0 However, it was primarily your treatment of the Kanin study that ultimately led me to that hypothesis.\u00a0 There were three specific places in your article that made it seem more like your exposure to the Kanin study was through Lisak&#8217;s critiques rather than reading the study in its entirety. First, when you bring up the study you quickly dismiss it because &#8220;But the department asked anyone claiming to have been raped to take a polygraph test to prove it.&#8221; For starters, I&#8217;m not sure that is 100% consistent with how it is described in the methodology section though: &#8220;The investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects.&#8221; \u00a0That is just a minor quibble though. The more important issue for me is that Kanin specifically addressed the concern about false confessions:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Several responses are possible to this type of criticism. First, with very few exceptions, these complainants were suspect at the time of the complaint or within a day or two after charging. These recantations did not follow prolonged periods of investigation and interrogation that would constitute anything approximating a second assault. Second, not one of the detectives believed that an incident of false recantation had occurred. They argued, rather convincingly, that in those cases where a suspect was identified and interrogated, the facts of the recantation dovetailed with the suspect&#8217;s own defense. Last, the policy of this police agency is to apply a statute regarding the false reporting of a felony. After the recant, the complainant is informed that she will be charged with filing a false complaint, punishable by a substantial fine and a jail sentence. In no case, has an effort been made on the part of the complainant to retract the recantation. Although we certainly do not deny the possibility of false recantations, no evidence supports such an interpretation for these cases.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>I cover this in more detail in my posts on the topic, but fact that no one claimed they just confessed to get process over with after being told that they will be charged with filing a false complaint seems to be a pretty key element here.<\/p>\n<p>Second, if your primary issue with the study is the polygraph, why no mention of the additional data in the addenda that found even high false reporting rates at colleges and did not involve the use of the polygraph?<\/p>\n<p>Finally, your discussion of the motivations for false reporting completely excludes the findings in the Kanin study.\u00a0 Specifically, your claim that &#8220;Revenge wasn&#8217;t a very common motivation&#8221; seems at odds with his finding it present in 27% of the cases in the original study, and 44% in the addenda.<\/p>\n<p>I should point out here that I think there are some serious issues in the Kanin study &#8211; just not the ones that Lisak brings up.<\/p>\n<p>2 &#8211; Research questions<\/p>\n<p>On the topic of reading all the underlying studies, you use a LOT of studies in your article.\u00a0 A quick count shows well over 1,300 pages and that doesn&#8217;t even get them all <em>[Note: in the original email I included a listing of page counts here]<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Q1 I&#8217;m assuming you didn&#8217;t read all of those in their entirety, so which ones did you read, which were more skimming and which were more based on the abstracts?<\/p>\n<p><em>A:\u00a0One thing to note is that I actually drafted this article in December. Both the editor and I have had a terrible time getting edits back to each other. That has two implications: 1) neither post in your series on this was up when I researched and drafted the piece; 2) my memory of what exactly I tracked down is not as good as it would be with a more recently researched article. (Yes, this means that I ran a piece that could be\/could have been outdated. Again, I own that.)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>To answer the preliminary question and question 1: Your instinct is right but your hypothesis is wrong. I did start from a lit review and work backwards from there (and did not read every study I mentioned). The lit review I used, though, wasn&#8217;t Lisak&#8211;I skimmed that later&#8211;but Rumney 2006. I think that, as a general rule, it&#8217;s acceptable for journalists to use lit reviews in this fashion. And because I started with the academic lit review before talking to Lonsway, etc., I wasn&#8217;t as concerned with accounting for author bias \u2014 it&#8217;s not that I think that academics don&#8217;t have bias, but a) I think it&#8217;s acceptable to treat academic work as legitimate until shown otherwise and b) in the absence of other information, trying to account for academic bias leads to a lot of caveats along the lines of &#8220;but this might not be the case, we really don&#8217;t know.&#8221; Which become repetitive and get edited out.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>As for Kanin in particular: I know I tracked down the cite as hard as I could, precisely because I wanted to check Rumney&#8217;s characterization of the polygraph test. I can&#8217;t remember if I actually got to the text or not (we lack access to the major academic databases \u2014 which is another reason why leaning on lit reviews happens).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Dara was unable to answer any questions that dealt with the editing process, so there is no way to know how big of a factor that might have been.\u00a0 Any work of professional journalism inevitably involves removals or changes due to length, flow, etc.\u00a0 This may help to explain why the article neglected to mention certain elements that I would like to have seen included. \u00a0After reading through her article in more detail, I\u00a0no longer think this was a matter of her not doing proper research, though we have differing opinions on what conclusions to draw from the underlying data.<\/p>\n<p>To end this post on an optimistic note &#8211; our exchange does seem to be an example of a twitter conversation leading to productive discussion instead of just devolving into a diarrhetic stream of insults. \u00a0It may not happen often, but it is good to know that it is possible.<\/p>\n<div class='footnotes' id='footnotes-204'>\n<div class='footnotedivider'><\/div>\n<ol>\n<li id='fn-204-1'> Ok, so not particularly recently, but getting a post up in under a month is about as quick as things get over here <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-1'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-2'> To start with, she mention the following: &#8220;I want to be upfront that these are just my views and not the views of my site, editors, etc. I own my errors.&#8221; <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-2'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-3'> Question 5 was &#8220;When evaluating the studies, did you have any concerns about bias on the part of the authors?&#8221; <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-3'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-4'> Though if you disagree, those international studies are going to fall victim to the same pitfalls as I discuss in the next section <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-4'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-5'> Surprisingly, when the boss tells you what they think the answer to a question is, people tend to arrive at similar conclusions <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-5'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-6'> Lisak&#8217;s citation for the study actually refers to it being from an &#8220;Unpublished manuscript&#8221; <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-6'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-7'> &#8220;The purpose of any follow-up\u00a0interviews should therefore be to gather\u00a0additional information and clarify any questions,\u00a0not to go over the same information\u00a0again.&#8221; <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-7'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-8'> &#8220;Given the size of the caseload that most\u00a0investigators and prosecutors handle, it\u00a0seems difficult to justify the inordinate time\u00a0that would be involved in investigating and\u00a0prosecuting someone for filing a false\u00a0report\u2014given that it is typically only a misdemeanor\u00a0offense.&#8221;\u00a0and &#8220;While it is understandable that investigators\u00a0might want to prove that the report is false\u00a0out of a sense of frustration and a determination\u00a0to get to the truth, this is probably\u00a0not the best use of limited resources.&#8221; <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-8'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<li id='fn-204-9'> While I have not included the authors of these tweets, should anyone care to check you will find that these are not exactly coming from random egg accounts <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-204-9'>&#8617;<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Recently1 Scott Greenfield over at Simple Justice sent me a tweet asking my thoughts on Dara Lind&#8217;s article on false rape allegations. \u00a0After taking a quick read through, I was fairly dismissive of it. \u00a0Much to her credit, upon seeing the twitter exchange between myself and Scott, Dara immediately corrected the error in her piece. &#8230; <a title=\"What do we know about false rape allegations?\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/2015\/06\/28\/what-do-we-know-about-false-rape-allegations\/\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[9,8],"class_list":["post-204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-argument-analysis","category-sexual-assault","tag-fun-with-numbers","tag-sexual-assault"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":244,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204\/revisions\/244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.datagoneodd.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}