I think you need to rethink what you are doing in inferring cause and effect from unrelated cases and easily manipulable statistics. Whether the statistics are credible for any purpose depends a lot on who is compiling them, who is defining rape, what the agenda is of the group compiling the statistics, what the sample make-up and size was, how the credibility of the accuser was assessed, what facts were present in each case and were relied upon in deciding the woman was not lying. You cannot infer from the fact that most rape victims tell the truth, that the victim in any particular case is likely telling the truth or that the alleged rapist is likely lying. Your statistics are not evidence of anything in a particular case. If they were, they would be usable in court, which they absolutely are not. Your argument reduces to this silly proposition, "Because she is a woman, she most probably is telling the truth, and because Corey is a man and a basketball player, he most probably is lying." If you were a juror in the trial of a rapist would you use your vast knowledge of statistics as evidence of guilt? I hope to hell not. I would have expected far more of you than to label Corey as a likely rapist without knowing any of the evidence and circumstances surrounding this case (which may differentiate it from all of the others in your percentages), without ever having had the chance of assessing the credibility of the accuser and the accused, and all because you read somewhere some numbers the relevance, reliability, and statistical significance of which you are not qualified to judge. You are living proof that men are presumed by the public to be guilty based upon nothing more than the woman's word. OFC