@Briankbl , I don't disagree with you in that it's wrong to suggest someone has acted suspiciously unless you have "just cause" to make such an accusation. I still say that @pc747 wasn't actually questioning the validity of that specific victim's claim, just that he was using that case as a basis for making an observation that perhaps there is reason to question some in the grand scheme of this issue. Call it skepticism, call it curiosity, call it doubt, but it wasn't specific to that case. At least that's how I read it. You may read it and interpret it differently and that's OK too.
In the world of communication, perception is reality for most people, so we sometimes may say things that weren't perhaps as carefully worded as they could be. On the other hand, it seems that compared with decades ago people can sometimes be far more easily offended by comments that are perhaps "not politically correct", or perhaps "suggestive". The current presidential candidates can tell you a thing or two about interpretation of statements and how easily they can be flipped in one way or another, simply based on the perspective of the listener or viewer.
I know @pc747 and I'm sure he didn't mean it the way it might have been interpreted by some. I also don't think you are wrong for thinking it might have been what you've suggested it was. I can see how someone might get that impression. I am simply trying to play referee here. No foul ball, no personal fouls, simply a scrimmage. We will play on.
